Supreme Court Backs Bankruptcy Trustee In Time-Limited Void Challenge
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision clarifying that legal challenges seeking to invalidate court judgments must be filed within a reasonable timeframe, resolving a longstanding disagreement among federal appeals courts.
In Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited Inc. v. Burton, the justices sided with the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which ruled in 2024 that parties seeking to overturn even potentially invalid judgments must comply with the timing requirements set forth in federal procedural law.
The dispute centered on the interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1), which states that motions seeking relief from a judgment must be made within a “reasonable time.”
Court Clarifies Procedural Deadline
The case originated when Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited Inc., a company based in the Brooklyn area, attempted to overturn a default judgment entered against it in 2015. The company argued it had never been properly served with legal papers and therefore the judgment should be considered void.
Both the bankruptcy court and a federal district court rejected the request, ruling that the challenge had been filed too late. The Sixth Circuit later upheld those decisions.
Writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito explained that the plain language of Rule 60(c)(1) applies broadly to all motions seeking to undo judgments, including those claiming the decision was void from the beginning.
According to the ruling, the structure and wording of the rule make clear that courts should not treat void-judgment challenges as exempt from timing requirements.
The decision resolves a long-running split among federal circuits. While several appeals courts had previously ruled that void judgments could be challenged at any time, others—including the Sixth Circuit—required litigants to act promptly.
During oral arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that determining whether a judgment is truly void can be complicated, and the court’s ruling preserves procedural safeguards designed to balance fairness with the need for finality in legal disputes.
Legal analysts say the decision will affect civil litigation nationwide by reinforcing stricter limits on how long parties can wait before attempting to reopen finalized cases.
Separate Ruling Strikes Down Trump Tariffs
In a separate and closely watched decision, the Supreme Court also struck down a key component of the Trump administration’s tariff strategy.
In a 6–3 ruling, the court determined that President Donald J. Trump lacked the statutory authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs without explicit authorization from Congress.
The tariffs had targeted goods from numerous U.S. trading partners and were central to the administration’s efforts to address trade imbalances and strengthen domestic manufacturing.
Vice President Vance Slams Decision
Vice President JD Vance sharply criticized the ruling in a post on X, accusing the court of undermining the president’s ability to defend American industry.
In the post, Vance wrote that the court had effectively decided that Congress, despite granting the president authority to “regulate imports,” did not actually intend to give the executive branch the tools necessary to act decisively.
“And its only effect will be to make it harder for the president to protect American industries and supply chain resiliency.”
Vance added that the administration still possesses other legal mechanisms to implement tariffs.
“President Trump has a wide range of other tariff powers, and he will use them to defend American workers and advance this administration’s trade priorities.”
Administration Signals Next Steps
President Trump responded to the decision by signaling that his administration would pursue alternative legal pathways to continue advancing its trade agenda.
While the ruling places limits on the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for broad tariffs, legal experts say it does not eliminate the administration’s ability to impose trade measures through other statutes.
Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, noted that the White House still has several tools available.
“The administration has other tools in its toolbox. It can actually impose tariffs under other statutes,” Turley said, suggesting that the administration still has significant room to maneuver in shaping U.S. trade policy.