author: Justice Breyer Justice Stevens,

text:
    ILLINOIS v. LIDSTER
    No. 02-1060.
    Argued November 5, 2003
    Decided January 13, 2004

      Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined, and in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined as to Parts I and II. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., joined, post, p. 428.

      Gary Feinerman, Solicitor General of Illinois, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Lisa Mad-igan, Attorney General, and Linda D. Woloshin, Lisa Anne Hoffman, and Karen Kaplan, Assistant Attorneys General.

      Patricia A. Millett argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Acting Assistant Attorney General Wray, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and Patty Merkamp Stemler.

      Donald John Ramsell argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Ohio et al. by Jim Petro, Attorney General of Ohio, Douglas R. Cole, State Solicitor, and Robert C. Maier, Assistant Solicitor, Robert J. Spagnoletti, Acting Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: William H. Pryor, Jr., of Alabama, Terry Goddard of Arizona, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Steve Carter of Indiana, Thomas J. Miller of Iowa, G. Steven Rowe of Maine, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Mike Hatch of Minnesota, Mike McGrath of Montana, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Peter Heed of New Hampshire, W. A. Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Hardy Myers of Oregon, D. Michael Fisher of Pennsylvania, Henry Dargan McMaster of South Carolina, Lawrence E. Long of South Dakota, Greg Abbott of Texas, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, Jerry W. Kilgore of Virginia, and Iver A. Stridiron of the Virgin Islands; for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation by Kent S. Scheidegger and Charles L. Hobson; and for the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police et al. by James G. Sotos.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al. by Lawrence S. Lustberg, Joshua L. Dratel, Steven R. Shapiro, and Harvey Grossman; and for the National College for DUI Defense by Barry T. Simons and W. Troy McKinney.

   Justice Breyer

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This Fourth Amendment case focuses upon a highway checkpoint where police stopped motorists to ask them for information about a recent hit-and-run accident. We hold that the police stops were reasonable, hence, constitutional.

I

The relevant background is as follows: On Saturday, August 23,1997, just after midnight, an unknown motorist traveling eastbound on a highway in Lombard, Illinois, struck and killed a 70-year-old bicyclist. The motorist drove off without identifying himself. About one week later at about the same time of night and at about the same place, local police set up a highway checkpoint designed to obtain more information about the accident from the motoring public.

Police cars with flashing lights bound lanes of the highway. The blockage forced traffic to slow down, leading to lines of up to 15 cars in each lane. As each vehicle drew up to the checkpoint, an officer would stop it for 10 to 15 seconds, ask the occupants whether they had seen anything happen there the previous weekend, and hand each driver a flyer. The flyer said “ALERT . . . FATAL HIT & RUN ACCIDENT” and requested “ASSISTANCE IN IDENTIFYING THE VEHICLE AND DRIVER INVOLVED IN THIS ACCIDENT WHICH KILLED A 70 YEAR OLD BICYCLIST.” App. 9.

Robert Lidster, the respondent, a ward the checkpoint. As he approached the checkpoint, his van swerved, nearly hitting one of the officers. The officer smelled alcohol on Lidster’s breath. He directed Lidster to a side street where another officer administered a sobriety test and then arrested Lidster. Lidster was tried and convicted in Illinois state court of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Lidster challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and conviction on the ground that the government had obtained much of the relevant evidence through use of a checkpoint stop that violated the Fourth Amendment. The triaí court rejected that challenge. But an Illinois appellate court ■reached the opposite conclusion. 319 Ill. App. 3d 825, 747 N. E. 2d 419 (2001). The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court. It held (by a vote of 4 to 3) that our decision in Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U. S. 32 (2000), required it to And the stop unconstitutional. 202 Ill. 2d 1, 779 N. E. 2d 855 (2002).

Because lower courts have reached different conclusions about this matter, we granted certiorari. See Burns v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 307, 541 S. E. 2d 872, cert. denied, 534 U. S. 1043 (2001) (Anding similar checkpoint stop constitutional). We now reverse the Illinois Supreme Court’s determination.

II

The Illinois Supreme Court basically held that our decision in Edmond governs the outcome of this case. We do not agree. Edmond involved a checkpoint at which police stopped vehicles to look for evidence of drug crimes committed by occupants of those vehicles. After stopping a vehicle at the checkpoint, police would examine (from outside the vehicle) the vehicle’s interior; they would walk a drug-sniffing dog around the exterior; and, if they found sufficient evidence of drug (or other) crimes, they would arrest the vehicle’s occupants. 531 U. S., at 35. We found that police had set up this checkpoint primarily for general “crime.control” purposes, i. e., “to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.” Id., at 41. We noted that the stop was made without individualized suspicion. And we held that the' Fourth Amendment forbids such a stop, in the absence of special circumstances. Id., at 44.

The checkpoint stop here differs signiAcantly from that in Edmond. The stop’s primary law enforcement purpose was not to determine whether a vehicle’s occupants were committing a crime, but to ask vehicle occupants, as members of the public, for their help in providing information about a crime in all likelihood committed by others. The police expected the information elicited to help them apprehend, not the vehicle’s occupants, but other individuals.

Edmond’s language, as well as its context, makes clear that the constitutionality of this latter, information-seeking kind of stop was not then before the Court. Edmond refers to the subject matter of its holding as “stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime.” Ibid, (emphasis added). We concede that Edmond describes the law enforcement objective there in question as a “general interest in crime control,” but it specifies that the phrase “general interest in crime control” does not refer to every “law enforcement” objective. Id., at 44, n. 1. We must read this and related general language in Edmond as we often read general language in judicial opinions — as referring in context to circumstances similar to the circumstances then before the Court and not referring to quite different circumstances that the Court was not then considering..

Neither do we believe, Edmond aside, that the Fourth Amendment would have us apply an Edmond-type rule of automatic unconstitutionality to brief, information-seeking highway stops of the kind now before us. For one thing, the fact that such stops normally lack individualized suspicion cannot by itself determine the constitutional outcome. As in Edmond, the stop here at issue involves a motorist. The Fourth Amendment does not treat a motorist’s car as his castle. See, e. g., New York v. Class, 475 U. S. 106, 112-113 (1986); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 561 (1976). And special, law enforcement concerns will sometimes justify highway stops without individualized suspicion. See Michigan Dept, of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444 (1990) (sobriety checkpoint); Martinez-Fuerte, supra (Border Patrol checkpoint). Moreover, unlike Edmond, the context here (seeking information from the public) is one in which, by definition, the concept of individualized suspicion has little role to play. Like certain other forms of police activity, say, crowd control or public safety, an information-seeking stop is not the kind of event that involves suspicion, or lack of suspicion, of the relevant individual.

. For another thing, information-seeking highway stops are less likely to provoke anxiety or to prove intrusive. The stops are likely brief. The police are not likely to ask questions designed to elicit self-incriminating information. And citizens will often react positively when police simply ask for their help as “responsible citizen[s]” to “give whatever information they may have to aid in law enforcement.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 477-478 (1966).

Further, the law ordinarily permits police to seek the voluntary cooperation of members of the public in the investigation of a crime. “[L]aw enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, [or] by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen.” Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 497 (1983). See also ALI, Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure §110.1(1) (1975) (“[L]aw enforcement officer may... request any person to furnish information or otherwise cooperate in the investigation or prevention of crime”). That, in part, is because voluntary requests play a vital role in police investigatory work. See, e. g., Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503, 515 (1963) (“[interrogation of witnesses ... is undoubtedly an essential tool in effective law enforcement”); U. S. Dept. of Justice, Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement 14-15 (Oct. 1999) (instructing law enforcement to gather information from witnesses near the scene).

The importance of soliciting the public’s assistance is offset to some degree by the need to stop a motorist to obtain that help — a need less likely present where a pedestrian, not a motorist, is involved. The difference is significant in light of our determinations that such an involuntary stop amounts to a “seizure” in Fourth Amendment terms. E. g., Edmond, 531 U. S., at 40. That difference, however, is not important enough to justify an Edmond-type rule here. After all, as we have said, the motorist stop will likely be brief. Any accompanying traffic delay should prove no more onerous than many that typically accompany normal traffic congestion. And the resulting voluntary questioning of a motorist is as likely to prove important for police investigation as is the questioning of a pedestrian. Given these considerations, it would seem anomalous were the law (1) ordinarily to allow police freely to seek the voluntary cooperation of pedestrians but (2) ordinarily to forbid police to seek similar voluntary cooperation from motorists.

Finally, we do not believe that an Edmond-type rule is needed to prevent an unreasonable proliferation of police checkpoints. Cf. 202 Ill. 2d, at 9-10, 779 N. E. 2d, at 859-860 (expressing that concern). Practical considerations— namely, limited police resources and community hostility to related traffic tieups — seem likely to inhibit any such proliferation. See Fell, Ferguson, Williams, & Fields, Why Aren’t Sobriety Checkpoints Widely Adopted as an Enforcement Strategy in the United States? 35 Accident Analysis & Prevention 897 (Nov. 2003) (finding that sobriety checkpoints are not more widely used due to the lack of police resources and the lack of community support). And, of course, the Fourth Amendment’s normal insistence that the stop be reasonable in context will still provide an important legal limitation on police use of this kind of information-seeking checkpoint.

These considerations, takén together, convince us that an Edmond-type presumptive rule of unconstitutionality does not apply here. That does not mean the stop is automatically, or even presumptively, constitutional. It simply means that we must judge its reasonableness, hence, its constitutionality, on the basis of the individual circumstances. And as this Court said in Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 51 (1979), in judging reasonableness, we look to “the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure, the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest, and the severity of the interference with individual liberty.” See also Sitz, 496 U. S., at 450-455 (balancing these factors in determining reasonableness of a checkpoint stop); Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S., at 556-564 (same).

III

We now consider the reasonableness of the checkpoint stop before us in light of the factors just mentioned, an issue that, in our view, has been fully argued here. See Brief for Petitioner 14-18; Brief for Respondent 17-27. We hold that the stop was constitutional.

The relevant public concern was grave. Police were investigating a crime that had resulted in a human death. No one denies the police’s need to obtain more information at that time. And the stop’s objective was to help find the perpetrator of a specific and known crime, not of unknown crimes of a general sort. Cf. Edmond, supra, at 44.

The stop advanced this grave public concern to a significant degree. The police appropriately tailored their checkpoint stops to fit important criminal investigatory needs. The stops took place about one week after the hit-and-run accident, on the same highway near the location of the accident, and at about the same time of night. And police used the stops to obtain information from drivers, some of whom might well have been in the vicinity of the crime at the time it occurred. See App. 28-29 (describing police belief that motorists routinely leaving work after night shifts at nearby industrial complexes might have seen something relevant).

Most importantly, the stops interfered only minimally with liberty of the sort the Fourth Amendment seeks to protect. Viewed objectively, each stop required only a brief wait in line — a very few minutes at most. Contact with the police lasted only a few seconds. Cf. Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 547 (upholding stops of three-to-five minutes); Sitz, supra, at 448 (upholding delays of 25 seconds). Police contact consisted simply of a request for information and the distribution of a flyer. Cf. Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 546 (upholding inquiry as to motorists’ citizenship and immigration status); Sitz, supra, at 447 (upholding examination of all drivers for signs of intoxication). Viewed subjectively, the contact provided little reason for anxiety or alarm. The police stopped all vehicles systematically. Cf. Martinez-Fuerte, supra, at 558; Sitz, supra, at 452-453. And there is no allegation here that the police acted in a discriminatory or otherwise unlawful manner while questioning motorists during stops.

For these reasons we conclude that the checkpoint stop was constitutional.

The judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court is

Reversed.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

There is a valid and important distinction between seizing a person to determine whether she has committed a crime and seizing a person to ask whether she has any information about an unknown person who committed a crime a week earlier. I therefore join Parts I and II of the Court’s opinion explaining why our decision in Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U. S. 32 (2000), is not controlling in this case. However, I find the issue discussed in Part III of the opinion closer than the Court does and believe it would be wise to remand the case to the Illinois state courts to address that issue in the first instance.

In contrast to pedestrians, who are free to keep walking when they encounter police officers handing out flyers or seeking information, motorists who confront a roadblock are required to stop, and to remain stopped for as long as the officers choose to detain them. Such a seizure may seem relatively innocuous to some, but annoying to others who are forced to wait for several minutes when the line of cars is lengthened — for example, by a surge of vehicles leaving a factory at the end of a shift. Still other drivers may find an unpublicized roadblock at midnight on a Saturday somewhat alarming.

On the other side of the equation, the likelihood that questioning a random sample of drivers will yield useful information about a hit-and-run accident that occurred a week earlier is speculative at best. To be sure, the sample in this case was not entirely random: The record reveals that the police knew that the victim had finished work at the Post Office shortly before the fatal accident, and hoped that other employees of the Post Office or the nearby industrial park might work on similar schedules and, thus, have been driving the same route at the same time the previous week. That is a plausible theory, but there is no evidence in the record that the police did anything to confirm that the nearby businesses in fact had shift changes at or near midnight on Saturdays, or that they had reason to believe that a roadblock would be more effective than, say, placing flyers on the employees’ cars.

In short, the outcome of the multifactor test prescribed in Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47 (1979), is by no. means clear on the facts of this case. Because the Illinois Appellate Court and the State Supreme Court held that the Lombard roadblock was per se unconstitutional under Indianapolis v. Edmond, neither court attempted to apply the Brown test. “We ordinarily do not decide in the first instance issues not resolved below.” Pierce County v. Guillen, 537 U. S. 129, 148, n. 10 (2003). We should be especially reluctant to abandon our role as a court of review in a case in which the constitutional inquiry requires analysis of local conditions and practices more familiar to judges closer to the scene. I would therefore remand the case to the Illinois courts to undertake the initial analysis of the issue that the Court resolves in Part III of its opinion. To that extent, I respectfully dissent.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Kennedy

license: Public Domain

text:
    FREW, on behalf of her daughter, FREW, et al. v. HAWKINS, COMMISSIONER, TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION, et al.
    No. 02-628.
    Argued October 7, 2003
    Decided January 14, 2004

      Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Susan Finkelstein Zinn argued the cause for petitioners. With her on the briefs were Edward B. Cloutman III and Jane Kathryn Swanson.,.

      Irving L. Gornstein argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General McCallum, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Mark B. Stern, and Alisa B. Klein.

      Rafael Edward Cruz, Solicitor General of Texas, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the briefs were Greg Abbott, Attorney General, Barry R. McBee, First Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey S. Boyd, Deputy Attorney General, and Melanie P. Sarwal, Assistant Solicitor General.

        David T. Goldberg filed a brief for AARP et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Utah et al. by Mark L Shurtleff, Attorney General of Utah, and Alain C. Balmanno and Joni J. Jones, Assistant Attorneys General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Ken Salazar of Colorado, M. Jane Brady of Delaware, Mark J. Bennett of Hawaii, Lawrence Wasden of Idaho, Richard P. Ieyoub of Louisiana, J. Joseph Curran, Jr., of Maryland, Michael A Cox of Michigan, Mike Moore of Mississippi, Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Peter W. Heed of New Hampshire, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, W. A Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, D. Michael Fisher of Pennsylvania, Lawrence E. Long of South Dakota, Jerry Kilgore of Virginia, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, Peg Lauten-schlager of Wisconsin, and Pat Crank of Wyoming; and for the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. by Richard Ruda and James I. Crowley.

   Justice Kennedy

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we consider whether the Eleventh Amendment bars enforcement of a federal consent decree entered into by state officials.

I

Medicaid is a cooperative federal-state program that provides federal funding for state medical services to the poor. See Wilder v. Virginia Hospital Assn., 496 U. S. 498, 502 (1990). State participation is voluntary; but once a State elects to join the program, it must administer a state plan that meets federal requirements. One requirement is that every participating State must have an Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program. See 79 Stat. 343, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§ 1396a(a)(43), 1396d(r). EPSDT programs provide health care services to children to reduce lifelong vulnerability to illness or disease. The EPSDT provisions of the Medicaid statute require participating States to provide various medical services to eligible children, and to provide notice of the services. See ibid.

Petitioners here are mothers of children eligible for EPSDT services in Texas. In 1993 they filed a civil action pursuant to Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, seeking in-junctive relief against the Texas Department of Health and the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, as well as various officials at these agencies charged with implementing the Texas EPSDT program. The named officials included the commissioners of the two agencies, the Texas State Medicaid Director, and certain employees at the Texas Department of Health. The individuals were sued in their official capacities and were represented throughout the litigation by the office of the Texas attorney general.

Petitioners alleged that the Texas program did not satisfy the requirements of federal law. They asserted that the Texas program did not ensure eligible children would receive health, dental, vision, and hearing screens; failed to meet annual participation goals; and gave eligible recipients inadequate notice of available services. Petitioners also claimed the program lacked proper case management and corrective procedures and did not provide uniform services throughout Texas.

After the suit was filed, the two Texas state agencies named in the suit moved to dismiss the claims against them on Eleventh Amendment grounds. Petitioners did not object, and in 1994 the District Court dismissed the state agencies as parties. The state officials remained in the suit, and the District Court certified a class consisting of children in Texas entitled to EPSDT services, a class of more than 1 million persons. Following extensive settlement negotiations, petitioners and the state officials agreed to resolve the suit by entering into a consent decree. The District Court conducted a fairness hearing, approved the consent decree, and entered it in 1996.

Judicial enforcement of the 1996 consent decree is the subject of the present dispute. The decree is a detailed document about 80 pages long that orders a comprehensive plan for implementing the federal statute. In contrast with the brief and general mandate in the statute itself, the consent decree requires the state officials to implement many specific procedures. An example illustrates the nature of the difference. The EPSDT statute requires States to “provide] or arrang[e] for the provision of . . . screening services in all cases where they are requested,” and also to arrange for “corrective treatment” in such cases. 42 U. S. C. §§ 1396a(a)(43)(B), (C)., The consent decree implements the provision in part by directing the Texas Department of Health to staff and maintain toll-free telephone numbers for eligible recipients who seek assistance in scheduling and arranging appointments. Consent Decree ¶¶ 241-242, Lodging of Petitioners 63-64. According to the decree, the advi-sors at the toll-free numbers must furnish the name, address, and telephone numbers of one or more health care providers in the appropriate specialty in a convenient location, and they also must assist with transportation arrangements to and from appointments. Id., ¶¶ 243-245, Lodging of Petitioners 64. The advisers must inform recipients enrolled in managed care health plans ¿hat they are free to choose a primary care physician upon enrollment. Id., ¶244, Lodging of Petitioners 64.

Two years after the consent decree was entered, petitioners filed a motion to enforce it in the District Court. The state officials, it was alleged, had not complied with the decree in various respects. The officials denied the allegations and maintained that the Eleventh Amendment rendered the decree unenforceable even if they were in noncompliance. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court issued a detailed opinion concluding that certain provisions of the consent decree had been violated. Frew v. Gilbert, 109 F. Supp. 2d 579 (ED Tex. 2000). The District Court rejected the Eleventh Amendment argument, id., at 660-678, and directed the parties to submit proposals outlining possible remedies for the violations.

The state officials filed an interlocutory appeal, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. The Court of Appeals held that the Eleventh Amendment prevented enforcement of the decree unless the violation of the consent decree was also a statutory violation of the Medicaid Act that imposed a clear and binding obligation on the State. Frazar v. Gilbert, 300 F. 3d 530, 543 (2002). The Court of Appeals assessed the violations identified by the District Court and concluded that none provided a valid basis for enforcement. Regardless of whether the EPSDT program complied with the detailed consent decree, the Court of Appeals reasoned, the program was good enough to comply with the general mandates of federal law. The Court of Appeals concluded that because petitioners had not established a violation of federal law, the District Court lacked jurisdiction to remedy the consent decree violations. Id., at 546-551.

Other Circuits have reached a contrary result, holding that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar enforcement of consent decrees in like circumstances. See, e. g., Kozlowski v. Coughlin, 871 F. 2d 241, 244 (CA2 1989); Wisconsin Hospital Assn. v. Reivitz, 820 F. 2d 863, 868 (CA7 1987). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals. 538 U. S. 905 (2003).

II

Petitioners advance two reasons why the consent decree can be enforced without violating the Eleventh Amendment. First, they argue the State waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity in the course of litigation. Second, they contend that enforcement is permitted under the principles of Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908). We agree that the decree is enforceable under Ex parte Young, and so we do not address the waiver argument.

This case involves the intersection of two areas of federal law: the reach of the Eleventh Amendment and the rules governing consent decrees. The Eleventh Amendment con-, firms the. sovereign status of the States by shielding them from suits by individuals absent their consent. Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 54 (1996). To ensure- the enforcement of federal law, however, the Eleventh Amendment permits suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials acting in violation of federal law. Ex parte Young, supra. This standard allows courts to order prospective relief, see Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974); Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267 (1977), as well as measures ancillary to appropriate prospective relief, Green v. Mansour, 474 U. S. 64, 71-73 (1985). Federal courts may not award retrospective relief, for instance, money damages or its equivalent, if the State invokes its immunity. Edelman, supra, at 668.

Consent decrees have elements of both contracts and judicial decrees.. Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U. S. 501, 519 (1986). A consent decree “embodies an agreement of the parties” and is also “an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees.” Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U. S. 367, 378 (1992). Consent decrees entered in federal court must be directed to protecting federal interests. In Firefighters, we observed that a federal consent decree must spring from, and serve to resolve, a dispute within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; must come within the general scope of the case made by the pleadings; and must further the objectives of the law upon which the complaint was based. 478 U. S., at 525.

This brings us to the intersection of the principles governing consent decrees and the Eleventh Amendment. As we understand their argument, the state officials do not contend that the terms of the decree were impermissible under Ex parte Young. Nor do they contend that the consent decree failed to comply with Firefighters. The officials challenge only the enforcement of the decree, not its entry. They argue that the Eleventh Amendment narrows the circumstances in which courts can enforce federal consent decrees involving state officials.

The theory advanced by the state officials is similar to the one accepted by the Court of Appeals. The officials reason that Ex parte Young creates a narrow exception to the general rule of Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit. Consent decrees involving state representatives threaten to broaden this exception, they contend, because decrees allow state officials to bind state governments to significantly more commitments than what federal law requires. Brief for Respondents 9-22. Permitting the enforcement of a broad consent decree would give courts jurisdiction over not just federal law, but also everything else that officials agreed to when they entered into the consent decree. A State in full compliance with federal law could remain subject to federal-court oversight through a course of judicial proceedings brought to enforce the consent decree. To avoid circumventing Eleventh Amendment protections, the officials argue, a federal court should not enforce a consent decree arising from an Ex parte Young suit unless the court first identifies, at the enforcement stage, a violation of federal law such as the EPSDT statute itself. Brief for Respondents 9-22.

We disagree with this view of the Eleventh Amendment. The decree is a federal-court order that springs from a federal dispute and furthers the objectives of federal law. See Firefighters, supra, at 525. The decree states that it creates “a mandatory, enforceable obligation." Consent Decree ¶ 302, Lodging of Petitioners 76. In light of the State’s assertion of its Eleventh Amendment immunity, the state officials lacked the authority to agree to remedies beyond the scope of Ex parte Young absent a waiver, as petitioners concede. Tr. of Oral Arg. 12. We can assume, moreover, that the state officials could not enter into a consent decree failing to satisfy the general requirements of consent decrees outlined in Firefighters. Petitioners’ motion to enforce, however, sought enforcement of a remedy consistent with Ex parte Young and Firefighters, a remedy the state officials themselves had accepted when they asked the District Court to approve the decree. Enforcing the agreement does not violate the Eleventh Amendment.

The theory advanced by the state officials relies heavily on our decision in Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U. S. 89 (1984). Pennhurst is distinguishable. In that case we found the rationale of Ex parte Young inapplicable to suits brought against state officials alleging violations of state law. 465 U. S., at 106. Jurisdiction was improper because “[a] federal court’s grant of relief against state officials on the basis of state law, whether prospective or retroactive, does not vindicate the supreme authority of federal law.” Ibid. Here, by contrast, the order to be enforced is a federal decree entered to implement a federal statute. The decree does implement the Medicaid statute in a highly detailed way, requiring the state officials to take some steps that the statute does not specifically require. The same could be said, however, of any effort to implement the general EPSDT statute in a particular way. The decree reflects a choice among various ways that a State could implement the Medicaid Act. As a result, enforcing the decree vindicates an agreement that the state officials reached to comply with federal law.

Hutto v. Finney, 487 U. S. 678 (1978), is instructive on this point. In Finney, the Court upheld a District Court’s award of attorney's fees designed to encourage state compliance with an existing court order. State prisoners had sued state prison officials claiming that the conditions of their confinement violated the Eighth Amendment, and the District Court had ordered the officials to improve prison conditions. When the officials refused to comply in good faith with the order, the District Court awarded attorney’s fees to the prisoners’ lawyers to be paid from the state treasury. Id., at 685. The state officials objected, arguing that the relief was not valid under the Eleventh Amendment because it exceeded the scope of Ex parte Young. The Court rejected this argument:

“In exercising their prospective powers under Ex parte Young and Edelman v. Jordan, federal courts are not reduced to issuing injunctions against state officers and hoping for compliance. Once issued, an injunction may be enforced.... If a state agency refuses to adhere to a court order, a financial penalty may be the most effective means of insuring compliance. The principles of federalism that inform Eleventh Amendment doctrine surely do not require federal courts to enforce their decrees only by sending high state officials to jail. The less intrusive power to impose a fine is properly treated as ancillary to the federal court’s power to impose injunctive relief.” 437 U. S., at 690-691 (footnote omitted).

The award of attorney’s fees “vindicated the District Court’s authority over a recalcitrant litigant,” the Court continued. “We see no reason to distinguish this award from any other penalty imposed to enforce a prospective injunction.” Id., at 691-692.

While Finney is somewhat different from the present case in that it involved the scope of remedies for violation of a prior order rather than the antecedent question whether remedies are permitted in the first instance, a similar principle applies. Federal courts are not reduced to approving consent decrees and hoping for compliance. Once entered, a consent decree may be enforced.

III

The state officials warn that enforcement of consent decrees can undermine the sovereign interests and accountability of state governments. Brief for Respondents 23-32. The attorneys general of 19 States assert similar arguments as amici curiae. Brief for Utah et al. as Amici Curiae. The concerns they express are legitimate ones. If not limited to reasonable and necessary implementations of federal law, remedies outlined in consent decrees involving state officeholders may improperly deprive future officials of their designated legislative and executive powers. They may also lead to federal-court oversight of state programs for long periods of time even absent an ongoing violation of federal law.

When a federal court has entered a consent decree under Ex parte Young, the law’s primary response to these concerns has its source not in the Eleventh Amendment but in the court’s equitable powers and the direction given by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In particular, Rule 60(b)(5) allows a party to move for relief if “it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application.” The Rule encompasses the traditional power of a court of equity to modify its decree in light of changed circumstances. In Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U. S. 367 (1992), the Court explored the application of the Rule to consent decrees involving institutional reform. The Court noted that district courts should apply a “flexible standard” to the modification of consent decrees when a significant change in facts or law warrants their amendment. Id., at 393. See also Philadelphia Welfare Rights Org. v. Shapp, 602 F. 2d 1114 (CA3 1979) (modifying consent decree implementing Pennsylvania’s EPSDT program in light of changed circumstances).

Rufo rejected the idea that the institutional concerns of government officials were “only marginally relevant” when officials moved to amend a consent decree, and noted that “principles of federalism and simple common sense require the [district] court to give significant weight” to the views of government officials. 502 U. S., at 392, n. 14. When a suit under Ex parte Young requires a detailed order to ensure compliance with a decree for prospective relief, and the decree in effect mandates the State, through its named officials, to administer a significant federal program, principles of federalism require that state officials with front-line responsibility for administering the program be given latitude and substantial discretion. •

The federal court must exercise its equitable powers to ensure that when the objects of the decree have been attained, responsibility for discharging the State’s obligations is returned promptly to the State and its officials. As public servants, the officials of the State must be presumed to have a high degree of competence in deciding how best to discharge their governmental responsibilities. A State, in the ordinary course, depends upon successor officials, both appointed and elected, to bring new insights and solutions to problems of allocating revenues and resources. The basic obligations of federal law may remain the same, but the precise manner of their discharge may not. If the State establishes reason to modify the decree, the court should make the necessary changes; where it has not done so, however, the decree should be enforced according to its terms.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.


author: Justice Ginsburg

text:
    KONTRICK v. RYAN
    No. 02-819.
    Argued November 3, 2003
    Decided January 14, 2004

      Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      E. King Poor argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Kimball R. Anderson, Michael J. Stepek, and Laura D. Cullison.

      James R. Figliulo argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were James H. Boiohay, Michael A. Pollard, and G. Eric Brunstad, Jr.

      Kent L. Jones argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General McCallum, Deputy Solicitor General Clement, William Ranter, and Michael E. Robinson.

        Henry J. Sommer filed a brief for the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys as amicus curiae urging reversal.

   Justice Ginsburg

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns the duration of a right to object to a pleading on the ground that it was filed out of time. Under the Bankruptcy Rules governing Chapter 7 liquidation proceedings, a creditor has “60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors” to file a complaint objecting to the debtor’s discharge. Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 4004(a). That period may be extended “for cause” on motion “filed before the time has expired.” Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 4004(b). In the matter before us a creditor, in an untimely pleading, objected to the debtor’s discharge. The debtor, however, did not promptly move to dismiss the creditor’s plea as imper-missibly late. Only after the Bankruptcy Court decided, on the merits, that the discharge should be refused did the debtor, in a motion for reconsideration, urge the untimeliness of the creditor’s plea.

Bankruptcy Rule 4004’s time prescription, the debtor maintains, is “jurisdictional,” i e., dispositive whenever raised in the proceedings. Rejecting the debtor’s “jurisdictional” characterization, the courts below held that Rule 4004’s time prescription could not be invoked to upset an adjudication on the merits. We agree that Rule 4004 is not “jurisdictional.” Affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, we hold that a debtor forfeits the right to rely on Rule 4004 if the debtor does not raise the Rule’s time limitation before the bankruptcy court reaches the merits of the creditor’s objection to discharge.

I

A debtor in a Chapter 7 liquidation case qualifies for an order discharging his debts if he satisfies the conditions stated in § 727(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U. S. C. § 727(a). A discharge granted under § 727(a) frees the debtor from all debts existing at the commencement of the bankruptcy proceeding other than obligations §523 of the Code excepts from discharge. § 727(b).

A debtor’s discharge may be opposed by the trustee, the United States trustee, or any creditor. § 727(c)(1). Adjudication of “objections to dischargfe],” Congress provided, is a “[c]ore proceeding]” within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts. 28 U. S. C. § 157(b)(2)(J). No statute, however, specifies a time limit for filing a complaint objecting to the debtor’s, discharge. Instead, the controlling time prescriptions are contained in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, specifically, Rules 4004(a) and (b) and 9006(b)(8).

In relevant part, Bankruptcy complaint objecting to the debtor’s discharge under § 727(a) of the Code shall be filed no later than 60 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors.” Rule 4004(b), governing extensions of the Rule 4004(a) filing deadline, provides: “[T]he court may for cause extend the time [Rule 4004(a) allows] to file a complaint objecting to discharge” if the motion is “filed before the time has expired.” Reinforcing Rule 4004(b)’s restriction on extension of the Rule 4004(a) deadline, Rule 9006(b)(3) allows enlargement of “the time for taking action” under Rule 4004(a) “only to the extent and under the conditions stated in [that rule],” i. e., only as permitted by Rule 4004(b).

HH H-t

On April 4, 1997, petitioner, Dr. Andrew J. Kontrick, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Respondent, Dr. Robert A. Ryan, a major creditor and Kontrick’s former associate in a cosmetic and plastic surgery practice, opposed Kontrick’s discharge. After gaining three successive time extensions from the Bankruptcy Court, Ryan filed an original complaint on January 13, 1998, in which he objected to the discharge of any of Kontrick’s debts. Ryan alleged that Kontrick had transferred property, within one year of filing the bankruptcy. petition, with intent to defraud creditors, and therefore did not qualify for a discharge under 11 U. S. C. §§ 727(a)(2)-(5). App. to Pet. for Cert. 40.

Ryan filed an amended complaint on May 6, 1998, with leave of court, ibid., but without seeking or gaining a court-approved time extension. The amended complaint particularized for the first time the debtor’s violation of § 727(a)(2)(A) in this regard: Debtor Kontrick, creditor Ryan alleged, had fraudulently transferred money to Kontrick’s wife, first by removing Kontrick’s own name from the family’s once-joint checking account, then by continuing regularly to deposit his salary checks into the account, from which his wife routinely paid family expenses (the “family-account” claim). Id., at 52-53.

Kontrick answered Ryan’s amended complaint on June 10, 1998. His answer “did not raise the untimeliness of [the family-account] claim,” Brief for Petitioner 4; on the merits, he admitted the transfers to the family account but denied violating § 727(a)(2)(A). In March 1999, after the parties engaged in acrimonious discovery, Ryan moved for summary judgment.. As Local Bankruptcy Rule 402(M) (Bkrtcy. Ct. ND Ill. 1994) instructs, Ryan appended to his motion “a statement of material facts as to which [he] contended] there [was] no genuine issue.” Kontrick cross-moved, in August 1999, to strike portions of Ryan’s summary judgment filings.

Kontrick’s motion to strike sought deletion of “new allegations,” i. e., allegations making their first appearance in the litigation in Ryan’s summary judgment submissions — Ryan’s statement of facts pursuant to Local Rule 402(M), accompanying exhibits, and corresponding portions of the summary judgment motion and memorandum. Motion to Strike and Response to [Ryan’s] Statement of Facts Under Local Rule 402 N in No. 97 B 1035B (Bkrtcy. Ct. ND Ill.), pp. 2, 5, 26. Although Kontrick noted that the family-account allegations were stated only in the amended complaint and were absent from the original complaint, id., at 3-4, he did not ask the court to strike those allegations. His response, instead, and in line with Local Rule 402(N), addressed the substance of the family-account claim. He admitted taking his name off the account, but observed that he did so “over four years before bankruptcy.” Id., at 13. He also acknowledged that, thereafter, he “deposited his paycheck into the account the same way he had always done.” Ibid.

On February 25, 2000, the Bankruptcy Court ruled on the cross-motions, granting in part Kontrick’s motion to strike, awarding summary judgment to Ryan on the family-account claim, and dismissing the remaining claims. The court used the amended complaint as its baseline; it struck as untimely “allegations not included in [that] complaint.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 47; see id., at 48-50. Homing in on Kontrick’s continuing deposits into the account from which he had removed his name, the court concluded that Kontrick had transferred property with intent “to hinder, delay or defraud at least [creditor] Ryan.” Id., at 55. That course of conduct, coupled with Kontrick’s testimony, the court concluded, sufficed to prove a violation of § 727(a)(2) (described supra, at 447, n. 1). App. to Pet. for Cert. 55, 64. Accordingly, the court held, Kontrick was not entitled to a discharge of his debts.

Kontrick moved for reconsideration. He argued that the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction over the sole claim on which the court had granted summary judgment, the family-account claim. See id., at 71. The court was powerless to adjudicate the claim, Kontrick insisted, because the amended complaint containing the claim was untimely. Governing Rules 4004(a) and (b) and 9006(b)(3), see supra, at 448, Kontrick maintained, establish a mandatory, unalterable time limit of the kind he then called “jurisdictional.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 71. It was the first time Kontrick appended a jurisdictional label to any pleading he filed relating to the family-account claim.

The Bankruptcy Court denied the reconsideration motion on June 8, 2000, and entered final judgment five days later. The court held that Rule 4004’s complaint-filing time instructions are not “jurisdictional,” and that Kontrick had waived the right , to assert the untimeliness of the amended complaint by failing squarely to raise the point before the court, reached the merits of Ryan’s objections to discharge.

The District Court sustained the Bankruptcy Court’s decision denying Kontrick’s discharge. App. to Pet. for Cert. 25-38. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in turn, affirmed the judgment of the District Court. In re Kontrick, 295 F. 3d 724 (2002). Both courts relied on decisions of sister Circuits holding that “the timeliness provisions at issue here are not jurisdictional.” Id., at 733 (citing In re Benedict, 90 F. 3d 50, 54-55 (CA2 1996), and Farouki v. Emirates Bank Int'l Ltd., 14 F. 3d 244, 248 (CA4 1994)); accord App. to Pet. for Cert. 31-32. Both courts also agreed with the Bankruptcy Court that Kontrick had waived the right to challenge Ryan’s amended complaint as impermissibly late.

The Seventh Circuit found in Kontrick’s papers opposing summary judgment nothing that placed in issue the timeliness of allegations in the amended complaint. 295 F. 3d, at 735. Instead, according to the Court of Appeals, Kontrick apparently accepted creditor Ryan’s amended complaint as properly filed; Kontrick used that complaint, not the original complaint, as a baseline to object to new allegations Ryan made for the first time in his statement of facts supporting summary judgment. Ibid. The Seventh Circuit further commented that “[t]he policy concerns of expeditious administration of bankruptcy matters and the finality of the bankruptcy court’s decision hardly are fostered by requiring the bankruptcy court to consider the timeliness of an issue that already has adjudicated.” Ibid.

We granted whether Rule 4004 is “jurisdictional,” 538 U. S. 998 (2003), and we now affirm the judgment of the Seventh Circuit.

Ill

Only Congress may determine a subject-matter jurisdiction. U. S. Const., Art. III, §1. Congress did so with respect to bankruptcy courts in Title 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure); in cataloging core bankruptcy proceedings, Congress authorized bankruptcy courts to adjudicate, inter alia, objections to discharge. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(I) and (J). Certain statutory provisions governing bankruptcy courts contain built-in time constraints.. For example, § 157(c)(1) addresses de novo district court review of bankruptcy court findings and conclusions in noncore proceedings; that provision confines review to “matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected.” The provision conferring jurisdiction over objections to discharge, however, contains no timeliness condition. Section 157(b)(2)(J) instructs only that “objections to discharges” are “[c]ore proceedings” within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts.

The time constraints applicable to objections to discharge are contained in Bankruptcy Rules prescribed by this Court for “the practice and procedure in cases under title 11.” 28 U. S. C. § 2075; cf. § 2072 (similarly providing for Court-prescribed “rules of practice and procedure” for cases in the federal district courts and courts of appeals). “[I]t is axiomatic” that such rules “do not create or withdraw federal jurisdiction.” Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U. S. 365, 370 (1978). As Bankruptcy Rule 9030 states, the Bankruptcy Rules “shall not be construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the courts.” Rule 9030’s forerunner — its counterpart in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 82 — similarly states: “These rules shall not be construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the United States district courts . . . See 12 C. Wright, A. Miller, & R. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3141, pp. 484-485 (2d ed. 1997) (“Rule 82 states [the] important principle” that “[t]he rules merely prescribe the method by which the jurisdiction granted the courts by Congress is to be exercised.”); Schacht v. United States, 398 U. S. 58, 64 (1970) (“The procedural rules adopted by the Court for the orderly transaction of its business are not jurisdictional . . . .”). In short, the filing deadlines prescribed in Bankruptcy Rules 4004 and 9006(b)(3) are claim-processing rules that do not delineate what cases bankruptcy courts are competent to adjudicate.

This much is common ground. Kontrick does not contend in this Court that the timing rules in question affect the subject-matter jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 9 (acknowledging that “[tjhis case does not deal with subject matter jurisdiction”); id., at 9-10 (explaining that counsel for Kontrick used the word “jurisdiction” “as a shorthand” to indicate a nonextendable time limit).

Courts, including this Court, it is true, have been less than meticulous in this regard; they have more than occasionally used the term “jurisdictional” to describe emphatic time prescriptions in rules of court. “Jurisdiction,” the Court has aptly observed, “is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 90 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). For example, we have described Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), on time enlargement, and correspondingly, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b), on extending time, as “mandatory and jurisdictional.” United States v. Robinson, 361 U. S. 220, 228-229 (1960). But see Carlisle v. United States, 517 U. S. 416, 419-433 (1996) (holding that, over the prosecutor’s objection, a court may not grant a postverdiet motion for a judgment of acquittal filed one day outside the time limit allowed by Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 29(c); this Court did not characterize the Rule as “jurisdictional”); Taylor v. Freeland & Kronz, 503 U. S. 638, 642-646 (1992) (similar ruling regarding Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 4003(b)). “[C]lassify[ing] time prescriptions, even rigid ones, under the heading ‘subject matter jurisdiction’ ” can be confounding. Carlisle, 517 U. S., at 434 (Ginsburg, J., concurring). Clarity would be facilitated if courts and litigants used the label “jurisdictional”, not for claim-processing rules, but only for prescriptions delineating the classes of cases (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the persons (personal jurisdiction) falling within a court’s adjudicatory authority.

Though Kontrick concedes that Rules 4004 and 9006(b)(3) are not properly labeled “jurisdictional” in the sense of describing a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, he maintains that the Rules have the same import as provisions governing subject-matter jurisdiction. A litigant generally may raise a court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction at any time in the same civil action, even initially at the highest appellate instance. Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382 (1884) (challenge to a federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction may be made at any stage of the proceedings, and the court should raise the question sua sponte); Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch 126, 127 (1804) (judgment loser successfully raised lack of diversity jurisdiction for the first time before the Supreme Court); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”). Just so, Kontrick urges, a debtor may challenge a creditor’s objection to discharge as untimely under Rules 4004 and 9006(b)(3) any time in the proceedings, even initially on appeal or certiorari. Tr. of Oral Arg. 10-11 (a debtor may object after final judgment or on appeal “so long as it’s within the same proceeding”); Brief for Petitioner 25, and n. 7 (same); Reply Brief 16, and n. 7 (citing lower court decisions supporting Kontrick’s argument on the longevity of time limits stated in Rules 4004 and 9006(b)(3), e, g., In re Poskanzer, 146 B. R. 125, 131 (NJ 1992); In re Rinde, 276 B. R. 330, 333 (Bkrtcy. Ct. RI 2002); In re Barley, 130 B. R. 66, 69 (Bkrtcy. Ct. ND Ind. 1991); In re Kirsch, 65 B. R. 297, 800, 302 (Bkrtcy. Ct. ND Ill. 1986)).

The equation Kontrick advances overlooks a critical difference between a rule governing subject-matter jurisdiction and an inflexible claim-processing rule. Characteristically, a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be expanded to account for the parties’ litigation conduct; a claim-processing rule, on the other hand, even if unalterable on a party’s application, can nonetheless be forfeited if the party asserting the rule waits too long to raise the point.

>

We turn back now to the relevant claim-processing rules in this case. Bankruptcy Rules 4004(a) and (b) and 9006(b)(3), governing proceedings over which bankruptcy courts have subject-matter jurisdiction, serve three primary purposes. First, they inform the pleader, i. e., the objecting creditor, of the time he has to file a complaint. Second, they instruct the court on the limits of its discretion to grant motions for complaint-filing-time enlargements. Third, they afford the debtor an affirmative defense to a complaint filed outside the Rules 4004(a) and (b) limits. This case involves the third office of the Rules.

It is uncontested that creditor Ryan filed his complaint objecting to debtor Kontrick’s discharge outside the Rules’ time limits. Kontrick urges that nothing occurring thereafter counts, for the Rules’ time prescriptions are unalterable, allowing no recourse to “equitable exceptions.” Brief for Petitioner 13, n. 4; see id., at 8, 16-18. This case, however, involves no issue of equitable tolling or any other equity-based exception. Neither at the time creditor Ryan filed the amended complaint containing the family-account claim nor anytime thereafter did he assert circumstances — equitable or otherwise — qualifying him for a time extension. Whether the. Rules, despite their strict limitations, could be softened on equitable grounds is therefore a question we do not reach. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16 (“[M]uch of [Kontrick’s] argument is actually directed to an issue that is not presented in this case,” i. e., whether the timing rules here in question are alterable by recourse to “‘equitable exceptions imported from outside the rules.’” (quoting Brief for Petitioner 13)); Tr. of Oral Arg. 40 (“Whether [the bankruptcy court] would have had discretion to allow a late complaint. . . isn’t before the Court, because [Ryan has not] claimed that [in this case] there is any equitable groun[d] for enlarging or extending the deadline, so that question isn’t presented.”).

We can assume, arguendo, that had Kontrick timely asserted the untimeliness of Ryan’s amended complaint, Kon-trick would have prevailed in the litigation. The question, in that event, would have been “whether the time restrictions in th[e] Rules are in such ‘emphatic form’” as to preclude equitable exceptions. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 16 (citation omitted). See, e. g., Carlisle, 517 U. S., at 419-433 (upholding timely challenge to one-day-late filing under Fed. Rule Grim. Proc. 29(c)); Taylor, 503 U. S., at 642-646 (similar ruling regarding Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 4003(b)); Robinson, 361 U. S., at 222-230 (similar ruling regarding Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 45(b)). Here, however, the sole question is whether Kontrick forfeited his right to assert the untimeliness of Ryan’s amended complaint by failing to raise the issue until after that complaint was adjudicated on the merits. In other words, how long did the affirmative defense Rules 4004(a) and (b) and 9006(b)(3) afforded Kontrick linger in the proceedings?

The Court of Appeals, we agree, followed the proper path on this key question. See 295 F. 3d, at 734-735. Time bars, that court noted, generally must be raised in an answer or responsive pleading. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(c) (made applicable to adversary proceedings in bankruptcy courts by Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 7008(a)). An answer may be amended to include an inadvertently omitted affirmative defense, and even after the time to amend “of course” has passed, “leave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(a); see Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 7015 (“Rule 15 F. R. Civ. P. applies in adversary proceedings.”).

Kontrick not only failed to assert the time constraints of Rules 4004(a) and (b) and 9006(b)(3) in a pleading or amended pleading responsive to Ryan’s amended complaint. As earlier recounted, see supra, at 449-450, Kontrick moved to delete certain items from Ryan’s summary judgment filings, but, even that far into the litigation, he did not ask the Bankruptcy Court to strike the family-account claim.

Ordinarily, under the Bankruptcy Rules as under the Civil Rules, a defense is lost if it .is not included in the answer or amended answer. See Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 7012(b) (“Rule 12(b)-(h) F. R. Civ. P. applies in adversary proceedings.”); 5A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1347, p. 184 (2d ed. 1990) (“A defense or objection that is not raised by motion or in the responsive pleading is waived unless it is protected by Rules 12(h)(2) or 12(h)(3) or by the successful invocation of the liberal amendment policy of Rule 15.”). Rules 12(h)(2) and (3) prolong the life of certain defenses, but time prescriptions are not among those provisions. Even if a defense based on Bankruptcy Rule 4004 could be equated to “failure to state'a claim upon which relief can be granted,” the issue could be raised, at the latest, “at the trial on the merits.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(h)(2). Only lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is preserved post-trial. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(h)(3). And, as we earlier explained, see supra, at 452-456, Kontrick’s resistance to the family-account claim is not of that order. No reasonable construction of complaint-processing rules, in sum, would allow a litigant situated as Kontrick is to defeat a claim, as filed too late, after the party has litigated and lost the case on the merits.

* * * .

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is

Affirmed.

       Under § 727(a), the court may not grant a discharge of any debts if the debtor, inter alia: (1) is not an individual; (2) has, with intent to defraud a creditor, concealed, transferred, or destroyed property of the estate (A) in the year preceding bankruptcy or (B) during the bankruptcy case; (3) has destroyed books or records; (4) has knowingly (A) given a false oath or account, (B) presented or used a false claim, (C) attempted to obtain money by acting or forbearing to act, or (D) withheld documents relating to the debtor’s property or financial affairs; or (5) has failed to explain a loss or deficiency of assets. 11 U. S. C. §§727(a)(lH5).

       Section 523 categorizes debts that are nondischargeable. See, e. g., 11 U. S. C. § 523(a)(1) (certain debts “for a tax or a customs duty”); § 523(a)(2)(A) (certain debts for money obtained by “false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud”); § 523(a)(5) (certain debts “to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debtor” for “support of such spouse or child”); § 523(a)(6) (debts for “willful and malicious injury by the debtor”).

       Under Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c), essentially the same time prescriptions apply to complaints targeting the discharge of a particular debt pursuant to 11 U. S. C. § 523(c). See supra, at 447, n. 2. Rule 4007(e) tracks Rules 4004(a) and (b), and Rule 9006(b)(3) lists Rule 4007(c) as well as Rule 4004(a) among time prescriptions bankruptcy courts may enlarge “only to the extent and under the conditions stated [in the rules themselves].” Because of the practical identity of the time prescriptions for objections to the discharge of any debts under § 727(a) and for objections to the discharge of particular debts under § 523(c), courts have considered decisions construing Rule 4007(c) in determining whether the time limits delineated in Rules 4004(a) and (b) may be forfeited. See, e. g., In re Kontrick, 295 F. 3d 724, 730, n. 3 (CA7 2002) (citing In re Santos, 112 B. R. 1001, 1004, n. 2 (BAP CA9 1990)).

       Although Kontrick took his name off the family bank account some four years prior to his bankruptcy petition, his salary check deposits continued into the one-year period preceding bankruptcy specified in 11 U. S. C. § 727(a)(2)(A) (described supra, at 447, n. 1). See App. to Pet. for Cert. 33, 52-53.

       In a prebankruptcy deposition, Kontrick admitted he transferred the once-joint bank account to his wife to prevent his creditors from attaching the funds. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 53; 295 F. 3d, at 727-728.

       Compare, e.g., In re Coggin, 30 F. 3d 1443, 1450-1451 (CA11 1994) (referring to Rule 4004(b) as a “jurisdictional requirement” and a “jurisdictional bar”), with, e. g.,. In re Benedict, 90 F. 3d 50, 54 (CA2 1996) (“time period imposed by Rule 4007(c) is not jurisdictional”).

       On brief at noting that the family-account claim was not stated in the original complaint, Kontriek had implicitly invited dismissal of the claim. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 5; Brief for Petitioner 5 (“Kontriek . .. argued that in opposing Ryan’s many other allegations as untimely, he had also sufficiently raised the untimeliness of the family account claim.”). Kontrick’s notation that the family-account claim was absent from the original complaint, the courts below agreed, fell short of an argument that the claim was untimely. 295 F. 3d, at 735; App. to Pet. for Cert. 72. We have no cause to disturb that determination. In any event, we train our attention on the question Kontriek here presented: “[W]hether the deadline set by Rule 4004 is mandatory and jurisdictional and thus cannot be waived.” Brief for Petitioner i. See also Pet. for Cert. i. We note, too, that the question whether the family-account claim could properly “relate back” to the original complaint was neither raised in the Seventh Circuit, 295 F. 3d, at 729, n. 2, nor aired in this Court, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 33.

       Provisions of a similar order, with built-in time constraints, include 28 U. S. C. § 2401(b) (tort claim against United States “shall be forever barred” unless presented “to the appropriate Federal agency within two years after [the] claim accrues” or civil action “is begun within six months after . .. notice of final denial of the claim by the agency to which it was presented”); and § 2107(a) (“Except as otherwise provided in this section, no appeal shall bring any judgment, order or decree in an action, suit or proceeding of a civil nature before a court of appeals for review unless notice of appeal is filed, within thirty days after the entry of such judgment, order or decree.”).

       Even subject-matter jurisdiction, however, may not be attacked collaterally. Des Moines Nav. & R. Co. v. Iowa Homestead Co., 123 U. S. 552 (1887); see Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 12 (1980).

       Like Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b), Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) is modeled on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). See Advisory Committee’s Note accompanying Rule 9006 (“Subdivision (b) is patterned after Rule 6(b) F. R. Civ. P. and Rule 26(b) F. R. App. P.” (emphasis in original)).

       Lower courts have divided on the question whether Bankruptcy Rules 4004 and 4007(c) allow equitable exceptions. Compare, e. g., 295 F. 3d, at 733 (Rules 4004 and 4007(c) “are subject to equitable defenses”); In re Benedict, 90 F. 3d, at 54 (same conclusion regarding Rule 4007(c)); Farouki v. Emirates Bank Int’l, Ltd., 14 F. 3d 244, 248 (CA4 1994) (same conclusion regarding Rule 4004), with, e. g., In re Alton, 837 F. 2d 457, 459 (CA11 1988) (per curiam) (Rule 4007(c) confers no discretion to grant an untimely motion to extend the time to object, even if the creditor lacked notice of the bar date); Neeley v. Murchison, 815 F. 2d 345, 346-347 (CA5 1987) (same).

       Nor should anything in this opinion be read to suggest that a debtor and creditor may stipulate to the assertion of time-barred claims when such an accommodation would operate to the detriment of other creditors. See, e. g., In re Dollar, 257 B. R. 364, 366 (Bkrtcy. Ct. SD Ga. 2001) (“Although the defendant debtor would significantly benefit by the allowance of the amended complaint [reflecting the parties’ pretrial agreement to substitute an untimely § 523(a)(6) cause of action for a timely § 727(a)(2) claim,] the defendant’s other creditors would be significantly harmed.”).

       As the Government notes, “[t]he issue in this case is more accurately described as one of forfeiture rather than waiver.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 7, n. 5. Although jurists often use the words interchangeably, “forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right!;] waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’ United States v. Olano, 507 U. S. 725, 733 (1993) (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938)).” Ibid, (some internal quotation marks omitted).

       In fuller detail, Bankruptcy Rule 4004(d) provides that “[a] proceeding commenced by a complaint objecting to discharge is governed by Part VII of these rules.” Part VII includes Bankruptcy Rule 7008(a), which states that “Rule 8 F. R. Civ. P. applies in adversary proceedings.”