Whether the Quiet Title Act's Statute of Limitations is a jurisdictional requirement or a claim-processing rule?

QUESTION PRESENTED Two Montana landowners filed a quiet title action seeking to resolve a dispute over the scope of an easement held by the United States that runs across their land and the federal government’s duties under the easement. The District Court held that the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations is jurisdictional, found that the landowners did not prove that their claims arose within twelve years of the lawsuit being filed, and dismissed the case. The District Court’s treatment of the statute of limitations as than a claim-processing rule— subjected the landowners to different standards for resolving the motion to dismiss, allowing the court to dismiss the case without holding a hearing to determine and resolve disputed facts. In conflict with the Seventh Circuit, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations is jurisdictional. The question presented is: Whether the Quiet Title Act’s Statute of Limitations is a jurisdictional requirement or a claimprocessing rule?