author: Justice Ginsburg Justice Thomas,

text:
    SCARBOROUGH v. PRINCIPI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
    No. 02-1657.
    Argued February 23, 2004
    Decided May 3, 2004

      Brian Wo lfinan argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Scott L. Nelson, Alan B. Morrison, and Peter J. Sarda.

      Jeffrey P. Minear argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General Keisler, Deputy Solicitor General Clement, Austin C. Schlick, William Ranter, August E. Flentje, and Tim S. McClain.

   Justice Ginsburg

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA or Act) departs from the general rule that each party to a lawsuit pays his or her own legal fees. See Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U. S. 240, 257 (1975). Relevant here, EAJA authorizes the payment of fees to a prevailing party in an action against the United States; the Government may defeat this entitlement by showing that its position in the underlying litigation “was substantially justified.” 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). In a further provision, § 2412(d)(1)(B), the Act prescribes the timing and content of applications seeking fees authorized by § 2412(d)(1)(A). Section 2412(d)(1)(B) specifies as the time for filing the application “within thirty days of final judgment in the action.” In the same sentence, the provision identifies the application’s contents, in particular, a showing that the applicant is a “prevailing party” who meets the financial eligibility condition (in this case, a net worth that “did not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the . . . action was filed,” § 2412(d)(2)(B)); and a statement of the amount sought, with an accompanying itemization. The fee application instruction adds in the next sentence: “The [applicant] shall also allege that the position of the United States was not substantially justified.”

Petitioner Randall C. Scarborough was the prevailing party in an action against the Department of Veterans Affairs for disability benefits. His counsel filed a timely application for fees showing Scarborough’s “eligibility] to receive an award” and “the amount sought, including [the required] itemized statement.” § 2412(d)(1)(B). But counsel failed initially to allege, in addition, that “the position of the United States was not substantially justified.” Pointing to that omission, the Government moved to dismiss the fee application. Scarborough’s counsel immediately filed an amended application adding that the Government’s opposition to the underlying claim for benefits “was not substantially justified.” In the interim between the initial filing and the amendment, however, the 30-day fee application filing period had expired. For that sole reason, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims granted the Government’s motion to dismiss the application and the Federal Circuit affirmed that disposition.

Scarborough’s petition for certiorari presents this question: May a timely fee application, pursuant to § 2412(d), be amended after the 30-day filing period has run to cure an initial failure to allege that the Government’s position in the underlying litigation lacked substantial justification? We hold that a curative amendment is permissible and that Scarborough’s fee application, as amended, qualifies for consideration and determination on the merits.

I

A

Congress enacted EAJA, Pub. L. 96-481, Tit. II, 94 Stat. 2325, in 1980 “to eliminate the barriers that prohibit small businesses and individuals from securing vindication of their rights in civil actions and administrative proceedings brought by or against the Federal Government.” H. R. Rep. No. 96-1005, p. 9; see Congressional Findings and Purposes, 94 Stat. 2325, note following 5 U. S. C. § 504 (“It is the purpose of this title ... to diminish the deterrent effect of seeking review of, or defending against, governmental action . . . .”). Among other reforms, EAJA amended 28 U. S. C. §2412, which previously had authorized courts to award costs, but not attorney’s fees and expenses, to prevailing parties in civil litigation against the United States. EAJA added two new prescriptions to §2412 that expressly authorize attorney’s fee awards against the Federal Government. First, § 2412(b) made the United States liable for attorney’s fees and expenses “to the same extent that any other party would be liable under the common law or under the terms of any statute which specifically provides for such an award.” Second, § 2412(d) rendered the Government liable for a prevailing private party’s attorney’s fees and expenses in cases in which suit would lie only against the United States or an agency of the United States. This case concerns the construction of § 2412(d).

Congress initially adopted § 2412(d) for a trial period of three years, Pub. L. 96-481, § 204(c); in 1985, Congress substantially reenacted the measure, this time without a sunset provision, Pub. L. 99-80, 99 Stat. 183. See id., § 6(b)(2), 99 Stat. 186. Congress’ aim, in converting § 2412(d) from a temporary measure to a permanent one, was “to ensure that certain individuals, partnerships, corporations ... or other organizations will not be deterred from seeking review of, or defending against, unjustified governmental action because of the expense involved.” H. R. Rep. No. 99-120, p. 4.

Section 2412(d) currently provides, in relevant part:

“(d)(1)(A) Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses, in addition to any costs awarded pursuant to subsection (a),[] incurred by that party in any civil action (other than cases sounding in tort),. . . brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.
“(B) A party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within thirty days of final judgment in the action, submit to the court an application for fees and other expenses which shows that the party is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive an award under this subsection, and the amount sought, including an itemized statement from any attorney or expert witness . .. stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses were computed. The party shall also allege that the position of the United States was not substantially justified.”

Section 2412(d)(1)(A) thus entitles a prevailing party to fees absent a showing by the Government that its position in the underlying litigation “was substantially justified,” while § 2412(d)(1)(B) sets a deadline of 30 days after final judgment for the filing of a fee application and directs that the application shall include: (1) a showing that the applicant is a prevailing party; (2) a showing that the applicant is eligible to receive an award (in Scarborough’s case, that the applicant’s “net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the civil action was filed,” § 2412(d)(2)(B)); and (3) a statement of the amount sought together with an itemized account of time expended and rates charged. The second sentence of § 2412(d)(1)(B) adds a fourth instruction, requiring the applicant simply to “allege” that the position of the United States was not substantially justified.

B

On July 9, 1999, petitioner Scarborough, a United States Navy veteran, prevailed before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) on a claim for disability benefits. App. to Pet. for Cert. 41a-44a. Eleven days later, Scarborough’s counsel applied, on Scarborough’s behalf, for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to § 2412(d). App. 4-5. Scarborough himself would gain from any fee recovery because his lawyer’s statutory contingent fee, ordinarily 20% of the veteran’s past-due benefits, 38 U. S. C. § 5904(d)(1), would be reduced dollar for dollar by an EAJA award. See Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992, 106 Stat. 4513, Fee Agreements, note following 28 U. S. C. §2412; Tr. of Oral Arg. 6.

The Clerk of the CAVC returned Scarborough’s initial fee application on the ground that it was filed too soon. App. 6-7. After the CAVC issued a judgment noting that the time for filing postdecision motions had expired, Scarborough’s counsel filed a second EAJA application (the one at issue here) setting forth, as did the first application, that Scarborough was the prevailing party in the underlying litigation; that his net worth did not exceed $2 million; and a description of work counsel performed for Scarborough since counsel’s retention in August 1998. Id., at 8-9. The application requested $19,333.75 in attorney’s fees and $117.80 in costs. Id., at 9. Scarborough’s applications, both the first and the second, failed to allege “that the position of the United States [in the underlying litigation] was not substantially justified,” § 2412(d)(1)(B). In all other respects, it is not here disputed, Scarborough’s filings met the § 2412(d)(1)(B) application-content requirements.

Again, the Clerk of the CAVC found the application premature, but this time retained it, unfiled, until the time to appeal the CAVC’s judgment had expired. The Clerk then filed the fee application and notified the respondent Secretary of Veterans Affairs that his response was due within 30 days. Id., at 10. After receiving and exhausting a 30-day extension of time to respond, the Secretary moved to dismiss the fee application. Id., at 2. The CAVC lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to award fees under § 2412(d), the Secretary maintained, because Scarborough’s counsel had failed to allege, within 30 days of the final judgment, “that the position of the United States was not substantially justified,” § 2412(d)(1)(B). CAVC Record, Doc. 12, pp. 4-5.

Scarborough’s counsel promptly filed an amendment to the fee application, stating in a new paragraph that “the government’s defense of the Appellant’s claim was not substantially justified.” App. 11. Simultaneously, Scarborough opposed the Secretary’s motion to dismiss, urging that the omission initially to plead “no substantial justification” could be cured by amendment and was not a jurisdictional defect. CAVC Record, Doc. 13, pp. 1-2. On June 14, 2000, the CAVC dismissed Scarborough’s fee application on the ground asserted by the Government. Scarborough v. West, 13 Vet. App. 530 (per curiam).

A year-and-a-half later, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. 273 F. 3d 1087 (2001). EAJA must be construed strictly in favor of the Government, the Court of Appeals stated, because the Act effects a partial waiver of sovereign immunity, rendering the United States liable for attorney’s fees when the Government otherwise would not be required to pay. Id., at 1089-1090. In the court’s view, “[t]he language of the EAJA statute is plain and unambiguous”; it requires a party seeking fees under § 2412(d) to submit an application, including all enumerated allegations, within the 30-day time , limit. Id., at 1090 (citing § 2412(d)(1)(B)). The court acknowledged that the Courts of Appeals for the Third and Eleventh Circuits read § 2412(d)(1)(B) to require only that the fee application be filed within 30 days; those Circuits allow later amendments to perfect the application-content specifications set out in § 2412(d)(1)(B). Id., at 1090-1091 (citing Dunn v. United States, 775 F. 2d 99, 104 (CA3 1985) (applicant need not submit within 30 days an itemized statement accounting for the amount sought), and Singleton v. Apfel, 231 F. 3d 853, 858 (CA11 2000) (applicant need not allege within 30 days that her net worth did not exceed $2 million or that the Government’s position was not substantially justified)).

The Federal Circuit also distinguished its own decision in Bazalo v. West, 150 F. 3d 1380 (1998), which had held that an applicant may supplement an EAJA application to cure an initial failure to show eligibility for fees. The applicant in Bazalo had failed to allege and establish, within the 30-day period, that he was a qualified “party” within the meaning of § 2412(d), i.e., that his “net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the civil action was filed,” § 2412(d)(2)(B). Id., at 1381. Bazalo differed from Scarborough’s case, the Court of Appeals said, because the Bazalo applicant had essentially complied with the basic pleading requirements and simply needed to “fles[h] out . . . the details.” 273 F. 3d, at 1092.

We granted Scarborough’s initial petition for a writ of cer-tiorari, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded the case in light of this Court’s decision in Edelman v. Lynchburg College, 535 U. S. 106 (2002). See 536 U. S. 920 (2002). Edelman concerned an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulation relating to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the regulation allowed amendment of an employment discrimination charge, timely filed with the EEOC, to add, after the filing deadline had passed, the required, but initially absent, verification. See 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(b) (requiring charges to “be in writing under oath or affirmation”). We upheld the regulation. Title VII, we explained, in line with “a long history of practice,” 535 U. S., at 116, permitted “relation back” of a verification missing from an original filing, id., at 115-118.

On remand of Scarborough’s case to the same Federal Circuit panel, two of the three judges adhered to the panel’s unanimous earlier decision and distinguished Edelman. 319 F. 3d 1346 (2003). Unlike the civil rights statute in Edel-man, the Court of Appeals majority said, a “remedial scheme” in which laypersons often initiate the process, EAJA is directed to attorneys, who do not need “paternalistic protection.” 319 F. 3d, at 1353 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Federal Circuit’s majority further observed that the two requirements at issue in Edelman — the timely filing of a discrimination charge and the verification of that charge — appear in separaté statutory provisions. In contrast, EAJA’s 30-day filing deadline and the contents required for a fee application are detailed in the same statutory provision. 319 F. 3d, at 1353. The majority also distinguished Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U. S. 757 (2001), in which we held that a pro se litigant’s failure to hand sign a timely filed notice of appeal is a nonjurisdietional, and therefore curable, defect. This Court had noted in Becker, the Federal Circuit majority pointed out, that the timing and signature requirements there at issue were found in separate rules. See 319 F. 3d, at 1353. The Federal Circuit’s opinion next distinguished Edelman’s verification requirement and Becker’s signature requirement from EAJA’s no-substantial-justification-allegation requirement on this additional ground: “[The] . . . substantial justification [allegation] is not a pro forma requirement,” for it “requires an applicant to analyze the case record” and “is one portion of the basis of the award itself.” 319 F. 3d, at 1353. Reiterating that the no-substantial-justification allegation is “jurisdictional,” the Federal Circuit held that Scarborough’s “[n]oncompliance [was] fatal” and dismissed the application. Id., at 1355.

Chief Judge Mayer dissented. The no-substantial-justification allegation, he found, “is akin to the verification requirement of Edelman and the signature requirement of Becker.” Id., at 1356. In addition to the pathmarking Edelman and Becker decisions, he regarded this case as “substantially the same case as Bazalo. 319 F. 3d, at 1356. In light of EAJA’s purpose “to eliminate the financial disincentive for those who would defend against unjustified governmental action and thereby deter it,” Chief Judge Mayer concluded, “it is apparent that Congress did not intend the EAJA application process to be an additional deterrent to the vindication of rights because of a missing averment.” Ibid.

We granted certiorari, 539 U. S. 986 (2003), in view of the division of opinion among the Circuits on the question whether an EAJA application may be amended, outside the 30-day period, to allege that the Government’s position in the underlying litigation was not substantially justified, compare Singleton, 231 F. 3d 853, with 319 F. 3d 1346. We now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

II

A

We clarify, first, that the question before us — whether Scarborough is time barred by § 2412(d)(1)(B) from gaining the fee award authorized by § 2412(d)(1)(A) — does not concern the federal courts’ “subject-matter jurisdiction.” Rather, it concerns a mode of relief (costs including legal fees) ancillary to the judgment of a court that has plenary “jurisdiction of [the civil] action” in which the fee application is made. See §§ 2412(b) and (d)(1)(A) (costs including fees awardable “in any civil action” brought against the United States “in any court having jurisdiction of [that] action”); 38 U. S. C. § 7252(a) (“The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.”). More particularly, the current dispute between Scarborough and the Government presents a question of time. The issue is not whether, but when, §§ 2412(d)(1)(A) and (B) require a fee applicant to “allege that the position of the United States was not substantially justified.” As we recently observed:

“Courts, including this Court,... have more than occasionally [mis]used the term ‘jurisdictional’ to describe emphatic time prescriptions in [claim processing] rules .... Classifying time prescriptions, even rigid ones, under the heading ‘subject matter jurisdiction’ can be confounding. 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.” Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U. S. 443, 454-455 (2004) (citation, some internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted).

In short, § 2412(d)(1)(B) does not describe what “classes of cases,” id., at 455, the CAVC is competent to adjudicate; instead, the section relates only to postjudgment proceedings auxiliary to cases already within that court’s adjudicatory authority. Accordingly, as Kontrick indicates, the provision’s 30-day deadline for fee applications and its application-content specifications are not properly typed “jurisdictional.”

B

We turn next to the reason why Congress required the fee applicant to “allege” that the Government’s position “was not substantially justified,” § 2412(d)(1)(B). Unlike the § 2412(d)(1)(B) prescriptions on what the applicant must show (his “prevailing party” status and “eligibility] to receive an award,” and “the amount sought, including an itemized statement” reporting “the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses were computed”), the required “not substantially justified” allegation imposes no proof burden on the fee applicant. It is, as its text conveys, nothing more than an allegation or pleading requirement. The burden of establishing “that the position of the United States was substantially justified,” § 2412(d)(1)(A) indicates and courts uniformly have recognized, must be shouldered by the Government. See, e. g., Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 567 (1988); id., at 575 (Brennan, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); Davidson v. Veneman, 317 F. 3d 503, 506 (CA5 2003); Lauer v. Barnhart, 321 F. 3d 762, 764 (CA8 2003); Libas, Ltd. v. United States, 314 F. 3d 1362, 1365 (CA Fed. 2003). See also H. R. Rep. No. 96-1005, at 10 (“[T]he strong deterrents to contesting Government action that currently exis[t] require that the burden of proof rest with the Government.”).

Congress did not, however, want the “substantially justified” standard to “be read to raise a presumption that the Government position was not substantially justified simply because it lost the case ....” Ibid. By allocating the burden of pleading “that the position of the United States was not substantially justified” — and that burden only — to the fee applicant, Congress apparently sought to dispel any assumption that the Government must pay fees each time it loses. Complementarily, the no-substantial-justification-allegation requirement serves to ward off irresponsible litigation, i. e., unreasonable or capricious fee-shifting demands. As counsel for the Government stated at oral argument, allocating the pleading burden to fee applicants obliges them “to examine the Government’s position and make a determination . .. whether it is substantially justified or not.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 31; see id., at 19 (petitioner recognizes that “the purpose of this allegation [is to make] a lawyer think twice”). So understood, the applicant’s burden to plead that the Government’s position “was not substantially justified” is'akin to the signature requirement in Becker and the oath or affirmation requirement in Edelman.

In Becker, a pro se litigant had typed, but had neglected to hand sign, his name, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), on his timely filed notice of appeal. 532 U. S., at 760-761, 763; see supra, at 411-412. Although we called the rules on the timing and content of notices of appeal “linked jurisdictional provisions,” Becker, 532 U. S., at 765 (referring to Fed. Rules App. Proc. 3 and 4), we concluded that a litigant could add the signature required by Rule 11(a) even after the time for filing the notice had expired, 532 U. S., at 766-767. Rule 11(a), we observed, provides that “omission of the signature” on any “pleading, written motion, [or] other paper” may be “corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party.” See 532 U. S., at 764. Permitting a late signature to perfect an appeal, we explained, was hardly pathbreaking, for “[o]ther opinions of this Court are in full harmony with the view that imperfections in noticing an appeal should not be fatal where no genuine doubt exists about who is appealing, from what judgment', to which appellate court.” Id., at 767-768 (citing Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 245, 248-249 (1992), and Foman v. Davis, 371 U. S. 178, 181 (1962)).

The next Term, in Edelman, we described our decision in Becker as having allowed “relation back” of the late signature to the timely filed notice of appeal. 535 U. S., at 116. Edelman involved an EEOC regulation permitting a Title VII discrimination charge timely filed with the agency to be amended, outside the charge-filing period, to include an omitted, but required, verification. Id., at 109; see supra, at 411. “There is no reason,” we observed in sustaining the regulation, “to think that relation back of the oath here is any less reasonable than relation back of the signature in Becker. Both are aimed at stemming the urge to litigate irresponsibly ....” 535 U. S., at 116.

Becker and Edelman inform our judgment in this case. Like the signature and verification requirements, EAJA’s ten-word “not substantially justified” allegation is a “think twice” prescription that “stem[s] the urge to litigate irresponsibly,” Edelman, 535 U. S., at 116; at the same time, the allegation functions to shift the burden to the Government to prove that its position in the underlying litigation “was substantially justified,” § 2412(d)(1)(A). We note, too, that the allegation does not serve an essential notice-giving function; the Government is aware, from the moment a fee application is filed, that to defeat the application on the merits, it will have to prove its position “was substantially justified.” As Becker indicates, the lapse here “should not be fatal where no genuine doubt exists about who is applying] [for fees], from what judgment, to which . . . court.” 532 U. S., at 767. Moreover, because Scarborough’s lawyer’s statutory contingent fee would be reduced dollar for dollar by an EAJA award, see 38 U. S. C. § 5904(d)(1); Fee Agreements, note following 28 U. S. C. § 2412, allowing the curative amendment benefits the complainant directly, and is not fairly described as simply a boon for his counsel. Permitting amendment thus advances Congress’ purpose, in enacting EAJA, to reduce the “emphasi[s], virtually to the exclusion of all other issues, [on] the cost of potential litigation” in a party’s decision whether to challenge unjust governmental action. H. R. Rep. No. 96-1005, at 7.

The Government, however, maintains that the relation-back regime, as now codified in Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is out of place in this context, for that Rule governs “pleadings,” a term that does not encompass fee applications. Brief for Respondent 21; see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(c)(2) (permitting relation back of amendments to pleadings when “the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original [timely filed] pleading”). See also Rule 7(a) (enumerating permitted “pleadings”). Scarborough acknowledges that Rule 15(c) itself is directed to federal district court “pleadings,” but urges that this Court has approved application of the relation-back doctrine in analogous settings. Brief for Petitioner 28. Most recently, as just related, we applied the doctrine in Becker and Edelman to, respectively, a notice of appeal and an EEOC discrimination charge, neither of which is a “pleading” under the Federal Rules. As the Government concedes, moreover, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 35-36, “relation back” was not an invention of the federal rulemakers. We applied the doctrine well before 1938, the year the Federal Rules became effective. See, e. g., New York Central & Hudson River R. Co. v. Kinney, 260 U. S. 340, 346 (1922); Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Renn, 241 U. S. 290, 293-294 (1916); Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Wulf, 226 U. S. 570, 575-576 (1913). With a view to then-existing practice, the original Rules Advisory Committee described “relation back” as “a well recognized doctrine.” Advisory Committee’s 1937 Note on Subd. (c) of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 686. Commentators have observed that the doctrine Rule 15(c) embraces “has its roots in the former federal equity practice and a number of state codes.” 6A C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1496, p. 64 (2d ed. 1990).

The relation-back doctrine, we accordingly hold, properly guides our determination that Scarborough’s fee application could be amended, after the 30-day filing period, to include the “not substantially justified” allegation: The amended application “arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth” in the initial application. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(c)(2). Just as failure initially to verify a charge or sign a “pleading, written motion, [or] other paper,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 11(a), was not fatal to the petitioners’ cases in Edelman and Becker, so here, counsel’s initial omission of the assertion that the Government’s position lacked substantial justification is not beyond repair.

C

The Government insists most strenuously that §2412’s waiver of sovereign immunity from liability for fees is conditioned on the fee applicant’s meticulous compliance with each and every requirement of § 2412(d)(1)(B) within 30 days of final judgment. Brief for Respondent 18-19; Tr. of Oral Arg. 28, 31; see Ardestani v. INS, 502 U. S. 129, 137 (1991) (“EAJA renders the United States liable for attorney’s fees for which it would otherwise not be liable, and thus amounts to a partial waiver of sovereign immunity.”). In the Government’s view, a failure to allege that the position of the United States “was not substantially justified” before the 30-day clock has run is as fatal as an omission of any other § 2412(d)(1)(B) specification. Brief for Respondent 15; Tr. of Oral Arg. 45.

We observe, first, that the Federal Circuit’s reading of § 2412(d)(1)(B) is not as unyielding as the Government’s. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has held that a fee application may be amended, out of time, to show that the applicant “is eligible to receive an award,” § 2412(d)(1)(B). See Bazalo, 150 F. 3d, at 1383-1384 (amendment made after 30-day filing period cured failure initially to establish that fee applicant’s net worth did not exceed $2 million). As earlier noted, see supra, at 412, the dissenting judge in Scarborough’s case found Bazalo indistinguishable. 319 F. 3d, at 1355-1356 (opinion of Mayer, C. J.).

Our decisions in Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89 (1990), and Franconia Associates v. United States, 536 U. S. 129 (2002), are enlightening on this issue. Irwin involved an untimely filed Title VII employment discrimination complaint against the Government. Although the petitioner had missed the filing deadline, we held that Title VII’s statutory time limits are subject to equitable tolling, even against the Government. 498 U. S., at 95. Similarly, in Franconia, we rejected an “unduly restrictive” construction of the statute of limitations for claims filed against the United States under the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491. See 536 U. S., at 145 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); ibid, (refusing to adopt “special accrual rule” for commencement of limitations period against the Government).

In those decisions, we recognized that “limitations principles should generally apply to the Government fin the same way that’ they apply to private parties.” Ibid, (quoting Irwin, 498 U. S., at 95). Once Congress waives sovereign immunity, we observed, judicial application of a time prescription to suits against the Government, in the same way the prescription is applicable to private suits, “amounts to little, if any, broadening of the congressional waiver.” Irwin, 498 U. S., at 95. We further stated in Irwin that holding the Government responsible “is likely to be a realistic assessment of legislative intent as well as a practically useful principle of interpretation.” Ibid.

The Government nevertheless maintains that Irwin and Franconia do not bear on this case, for “[§] 2412(d) authorizes fee awards against the government under rules that have no analogue in private litigation.” Brief for Respondent 39. But it is hardly clear that Irwin demands a precise private analogue. Litigation against the United States exists because Congress has enacted legislation creating rights against the Government, often in matters peculiar to the Government’s engagements with private persons — matters, such as the administration of benefit programs. Because many statutes that create claims for relief against the United States or its agencies apply only to Government defendants, Irwin’s reasoning would be diminished were it instructive only in situations with a readily identifiable private-litigation equivalent.

In any event, § 2412(d) is analogous to other fee-shifting provisions abrogating the general rule that each party to a lawsuit pays his own legal fees. The provision resembles “prevailing party” fee-shifting statutes that are applicable to suits between private litigants. See, e. g., 15 U. S. C. § 1692k(a)(3) (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act); 29 U. S. C. § 2617(a)(3) (Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993); 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5(k) (Title VII); cf. Franconia, 536 U. S., at 145 (comparing Tucker Act statute of limitations to “contemporaneous state statutes of limitations applicable to suits between private parties [that] also tie the commencement of the limitations period to the date a claim ‘first accrues’”).

We note, finally, that the Government has never argued that it will be prejudiced if Scarborough’s “not substantially justified” allegation is permitted to relate back to his timely filed fee application. Moreover, a showing of prejudice should preclude operation of the relation-back doctrine in the first place. See Singleton, 231 F. 3d, at 858 (“The interests of the government and the courts will be served, however, if district courts are empowered to . . . outright deny a request to supplement [a fee application] if the government would be prejudiced.”). In addition, EAJA itself has a built-in check: Section 2412(d)(1)(A) disallows fees where “special circumstances make an award unjust.” See H. R. Rep. No. 96-1418, p. 11 (1980) (§2412(d)(l)(A)’s “safety valve” gives “the court discretion to deny awards where equitable considerations dictate an award should not be made”). Our conclusion that a timely filed EAJA fee application may be amended, out of time, to allege “that the position of the United States was not substantially justified,” § 2412(d)(1)(B), therefore will not expose the Government to any unfair imposition.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Thomas,

with whom Justice Scalia joins,

dissenting.

Without deciding that the statutorily mandated 30-day deadline “even applies to the ‘not substantially justified’ allegation requirement,” ante, at 419, n. 6, the Court, nonetheless, applies the relation-back doctrine to cure the omitted no-substantial-justification allegation in petitioner’s Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) fee application. The Court should have first addressed whether, as a textual matter, the no-substantial-justification allegation must be made within the 30-day deadline. I conclude that it must. The question then becomes whether the judicial application of the relation-back doctrine is appropriate in a case such as this where the statute defines the scope of the Government’s waiver of sovereign immunity. Because there is no express allowance for relation back in EAJA, I conclude that the sovereign immunity canon applies to construe strictly the scope of the Government’s waiver. The Court reaches its holding today by distorting the scope of Irwin v. Department of Vet erans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89 (1990), and by eviscerating that case’s doctrinal underpinnings.

I

In my view, the better reading of the text of the statute is that the 30-day deadline applies to the no-substantial-justification-allegation requirement. The first sentence of 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d)(1)(B) states that “[a] party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within thirty days of final judgment in the action, submit to the court an application for fees ... which shows”: (1) the applicant’s status as a prevailing party; (2) that the applicant is eligible to receive fees under § 2412(d)(2)(B); and (3) the itemized amount sought. The second sentence of § 2412(d)(1)(B) provides: “The party shall also allege that the position of the United States was not substantially justified.” Ibid. In stating that the applicant “shall also” make the no-substantial-justification allegation, the second sentence links the allegation requirement with the timing and other content requirements of the first sentence. Indeed, there is only one deadline expressly contained in the provision. That 30-day deadline imposes a limitation on a set of requirements that petitioner must satisfy in order to receive an EAJA fee award. Immediately following the deadline is another sentence that requires the petitioner . to make the no-substantial-justification allegation. Taking the provision as a whole, it is quite natural to read it as applying the 30-day deadline to all of its requirements. And, this reading is confirmed by numerous federal agency regulations, which have interpreted a nearly identical EAJA provision allowing for fees in adversary adjudications conducted before federal agencies.

II

Because I conclude that the no-substantial-justification allegation must be made within the 30-day deadline, the question becomes whether the relation-back doctrine should apply here. The EAJA requirement for filing a timely fee application with the statutorily prescribed content is a condition on the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity in § 2412(d)(1)(A). See Ardestani v. INS, 502 U. S. 129, 137 (1991). As such, the scope of the waiver must be strictly construed. See, e. g., Irwin, 498 U. S., at 94; United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 34 (1992) (stating that a waiver of sovereign immunity “must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign” and “not enlarge [d]... beyond what the language requires” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Library of Congress v. Shaw, 478 U. S. 310, 318 (1986) (same); Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U. S. 156, 161 (1981) (“[Limitations and conditions upon which the Government consents to be sued must be strictly observed and exceptions thereto are not to be implied” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Since the relation-back doctrine relied upon by the Court is not present in the text of the statute, under a simple application of the sovereign immunity canon, petitioner is not entitled to “relate-back” his allegation beyond the 30-day deadline.

The only way the Court avoids this straightforward conclusion is by applying Irwin. Ante, at 420-422. Although Irwin does perhaps narrow the scope of the sovereign immunity canon, it does so only in limited circumstances. In particular, where the Government is made subject to suit to the same extent and in the same manner as private parties are, Irwin holds that the Government is subject to the rules that are “applicable to private suits.” 498 U. S., at 95. The Court in Irwin, addressing equitable tolling, explained that “[t]ime requirements in lawsuits between private litigants are customarily subject to ‘equitable tolling,’” and that “[o]nce Congress has made ... a waiver [of sovereign immunity], . . . making the rule of equitable tolling applicable to suits against the Government, in the same way that it is applicable to private suits, amounts to little, if any, broadening of the congressional waiver.” Ibid. The Court determined that “[s]uch a principle is likely to be a realistic assessment of legislative intent as well as a practically useful principle of interpretation.” Ibid.

Notwithstanding Irwin’s limited scope, the Court concludes: “Irwin’s reasoning would be diminished were it instructive only in situations with a readily identifiable private-litigation equivalent.” Ante, at 422. The existence of this “private-litigation equivalent,” however, formed the very basis for the Court’s holding in Irwin.

I agree with the Government that there is “no analogue in private litigation,” Brief for Respondent 39, for the EAJA fee awards at issue here. Section 2412(d) authorizes fee awards against the Government when there is no basis for recovery under the rules for private litigation. Irwin’s analysis simply cannot apply to a proceeding against the Government when there is no analogue for it in private litigation. Accordingly, I would apply the sovereign immunity canon to construe strictly the scope of the Government’s waiver and, therefore, against allowing an applicant to avoid the express statutory limitation through judicial application of the relation-back doctrine. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

       Subsection (a) states: “Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a judgment for costs ... may be awarded to the prevailing party in any civil action brought by or against the United States -.. in any court having jurisdiction of such action.” § 2412(a)(1).

       The same reduction applies in Social Security cases, see Pub. L. 99-80, § 3, 99 Stat. 186, which account for the large majority of EAJA awards. L. Mecham, Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts 35-37 (1990).

       Scarborough had already invoked the CAVC’s exclusive jurisdiction— by appealing the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ July 1998 decision denying his claim for disability benefits — well before he applied for fees; this distinguishes his case from Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U. S. 312 (1988), on which the Government relies. See Brief for Respondent 11, 20, n. 3. Torres involved the omission of required content (each applicant’s name) in a notice of appeal, the filing that triggers appellate-court jurisdiction over the case. See 487 U. S., at 315, 317.

       All agree that § 2412(d)(1)(B) requires a fee applicant to allege that the Government’s position “was not substantially justified.” In this regard, the dissent sees fire where there is no flame. The guides the dissent sets out, post, at 424-425, nn. 2 and 3 — court rules and agency regulations— address only what the applicant must plead, not the question of time presented here.

       See, e. g., Fed. Equity Rule 19 (1912) (“The court may at any time, in furtherance of justice, upon such terms as may be just, permit any process, proceeding, pleading or record to be amended, or material supplemental matter to be set forth in an amended or supplemental pleading. The court, at every stage of the proceeding, must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”); Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110, §§ 170(1M2) (Smith-Hurd 1935) (“At any time before final judgment in a civil action, amendments may be allowed ... in any process, pleading or proceedings .... The cause of action, cross demand or defense set up in any amended pleading shall not be barred by, lapse of time ... if the time prescribed or limited had not expired when the original pleading was filed, and if... the amended pleading grew out of the same transaction or occurrence set up in the original pleading----”); 2 Wash. Rev. Stat. §308-3(4) (Remington 1932) (“A cause of action which would not have been barred by the statute of limitations if stated in the original complaint or counterclaim shall not be so barred if introduced by amendment at any later stage of the action, if the adverse party was fairly apprised of its nature by the original pleading .. ..”).

       Scarborough also urges that, regardless of the availability of “relation back,” §2412(d)(l)(B)’s 30-day deadline does not apply to the no-substantial-justification-allegation requirement.. Brief for Petitioner 36-39. In support, Scarborough points out that Congress easily could have placed the allegation requirement in the first sentence of § 2412(d)(1)(B), together with the 30-day deadline and the other application-content specifications. Congress’ decision, instead, to set forth the allegation requirement in a separate, second sentence, which contains no time limitation, Scarborough asserts, is significant. Id., at 39. Moreover, Scarborough contends, the fact that §2412(d)(l)(B)’s second sentence is structured differently from the section’s first sentence (requiring the “party” to “allege,” rather than directing “the application” to “sho[w]”) further indicates that Congress viewed the “not substantially justified” allegation as separate from the fee application’s requirements more closely linked to the filing deadline. Id., at 38. We do not think that this question, as the Government suggests, was answered in Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U. S. 154 (1990). See Brief for Respondent 15,24; Tr. of Oral Arg. 28,45. In Jean, we held that a party who prevails in fee litigation under EAJA may recover fees for legal services rendered during the fee litigation even if some of the Government’s positions regarding the proper fee were “substantially justified,” i. e., the district court need not make a second finding of no substantial justification before awarding fees for the fee contest itself. 496 U. S., at 160-162. The sentence in Jean on which the Government relies, stating that “[a] fee application must contain an allegation 'that the position of the United States was not substantially justified,’ ” id., at 160, like Jean’s holding, did not concern the timing question we here confront. In any event, because our decision rests on the applicability of the relation-back doctrine, we do not further explore the debatable question whether § 2412(d)(l)(B)’s 30-day deadline even applies to the “not substantially justified” allegation requirement.

       The question whether a fee application may be amended after the 30-day filing period to cure an initial failure to make the “showfings]” set forth in the first sentence of § 2412(d)(1)(B) is not before us. We offer no view on the applicability of “relation back” in that situation.

       Although we held that equitable tolling could be applied in Title VII claims against the Government, we further determined that the doctrine’s requirements were not met on the specific facts of Irwin. The Irwin petitioner’s excuse for the late complaint — his lawyer’s absence from the office when the EEOC notice that triggered the complaint-filing deadline was received — ranked “at best [as] a garden variety claim of excusable neglect.” 498 U. S., at 96. In this case, we note, the Government extensively argues against recourse to Irwin’s “rebuttable presumption” that equitable tolling is available in litigation Congress has authorized against the United States. . Id., at 95; see Brief for Respondent 32-41. Because our decision rests on other grounds, we express no opinion on the applicability of equitable tolling in the circumstances here presented.

       Indeed, in enacting EAJA, Congress expressed its belief that “at a minimum, the United States should be held to the same standards in litigating as private parties.” H. R. Rep. No. 96-1418, p. 9 (1980).

       “Also” is defined as “likewise,” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 75 (1991), or “in like manner,” Black’s Law Dictionary 77 (6th ed. 1990).

       Several Courts of Appeals explicitly require an applicant to include the no-substantial-justification allegation in an EAJA fee application. See Federal Court of Appeals Manual: Local Rules 344-345 (West 2004) (CA2 “Local Form for EAJA Fee Application”); id., at 1474-1475 (CA Fed. form “Application for Fees and Other Expenses Under the [EAJA]”); id., at 244-245 (CAI Rule 39(a)(2)(D) (2004) (“The application shall . . . identify the specific position of the United States that the party alleges was not substantially justified”)); id., at 699 (CA5 Rule 47.8.2(a) (2004) (“The application . . . must identify the position of the United States or an agency thereof that the applicant alleges was not substantially justified”)); id., at 1103 (CA9 Rule 39-2.1 (2004) (“The application .. . shall identify the position of the United States Government or an agency thereof in the proceeding that the applicant alleges was not substantially justified”)).

       See, e. g., 49 CFR § 6.17(a) (2003) (“The application shall . . . identify the position of an agency or agencies in the proceeding that the applicant alleges was not substantially justified”); 40 CFR § 17.11(a) (2003) (“The application shall... identify the position of [the Environmental Protection Agency] in the proceeding that the applicant alleges was not substantially justified”); 15 CFR § 18.11(a) (2003) (“The application shall... identify the position of the Department [of Commerce] . . . that the applicant alleges was not substantially justified”); 34 CFR § 21.31 (2003) (“In its application for an award of fees and other expenses, an applicant shall include . . . [a]n allegation that the position of the Department [of Education] was not substantially justified, including a description of the specific position”); 24 CFR § 14.200(a) (2003) (“An application for an award of fees and expenses under the Act shall... identify the position of the Department [of Housing and Urban Development] or other agencies that the applicant alleges was not substantially justified”); 39 CFR § 960.9(a) (2003) (“The application shall. .. identify the position of the Postal Service in the proceeding that the applicant alleges was not substantially justified”).

         See 5 U. S. C. § 504(a)(2) (“A party seeking an award of fees and other expenses shall, within thirty days of a final disposition in the adversary adjudication, submit to the agency an application which shows that the party is a prevailing party and is eligible to receive an award under this section, and the amount sought, including an itemized statement from any attorney, agent, or expert witness representing or appearing in behalf of the party stating the actual time expended and the rate at which fees and other expenses were computed. The party shall also allege that the position of the agency was not substantially justified”).

       Compare 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) (“Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses . . . incurred by that party in any civil action ... brought by or against the United States in any court having jurisdiction of that action, unless the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust”) with § 2412(b) (“The United States shall be liable for such fees and expenses to the same extent that any other party would be liable under the common law or under the terms of any statute which specifically provides for such an award”).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Per Curiam.

license: Public Domain

text:
    JOHNSON v. CALIFORNIA
    No. 03-6539.
    Argued March 30, 2004
    Decided May 3, 2004

      Stephen B. Bedrick, by appointment of the Court, 540 U. S. 1102, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Eric Schnapper.

      Seth K. Schalit, Supervising Deputy Attorney General of California, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Manuel Me

      deiros, State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Laurence K. Sullivan, Supervising Deputy Attorney General.

       A brief of amici curiae urging reversal was filed for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., et al. by Elaine R. Jones, Theodore M. Shaw, Norman J. Chachkin, Miriam Gohara, Christina A. Swarns, Steven R. Shapiro, Alan L. Schlosser, David M. Porter, Barbara R. Arnwine, Thomas J. Henderson, Michael L. Foreman, Audrey Wiggins, Sarah Crawford, and Barry Sullivan.

      A brief of amicus curiae urging affirmance was filed for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation by Kent S. Scheidegger and Charles L. Hobson.

   Per Curiam.

We granted certiorari in this case to review a decision of the Supreme Court of California interpreting Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (1986). 540 U. S. 1045 (2003). The case was briefed and argued, but we now conclude that we are without jurisdiction in the matter.

The California Supreme Court reversed the California Court of Appeal’s decision reversing petitioner’s conviction. 30 Cal. 4th 1302, 71 P. 3d 270 (2003). The Court of Appeal held that petitioner was entitled to relief under People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal. 3d 258, 583 P. 2d 748 (1978), and Batson v. Kentucky, supra. 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 727 (2001). It also noted petitioner’s separate evidentiary and prosecutorial misconduct claims, App. 87, but did not determine whether those claims would independently support reversal of petitioner’s conviction. The California Supreme Court addressed only the Wheeler/Batson claim, and, after reversing on that ground, remanded “for further proceedings consistent with [its] opinion.” 30 Cal. 4th, at 1328, 71 P. 3d, at 287.

Under 28 U. S. C. § 1257, our jurisdiction is limited to review of “[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had.” In Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975), we described four exceptional categories of cases to be regarded as “final” on the federal issue despite the ordering of further proceedings in the lower state courts. In a post-oral-argument supplemental brief, petitioner argues that the fourth of these categories fits this case. That category involves situations

“where the federal issue has been finally decided in the state courts with further proceedings pending in which the party seeking review here might prevail on the merits on nonfederal grounds, thus rendering unnecessary review of the federal issue by this Court, and where reversal of the state court on the federal issue would be preclusive of any further litigation on the relevant cause of action rather than merely controlling the nature and character of, or determining the admissibility of evidence in, the state proceedings still to come. In these circumstances, if a refusal immediately to review the state-court decision might seriously erode federal policy, the Court has entertained and decided the federal issue, which itself has been finally determined by the state courts for purposes of the state litigation.” Id., at 482-483.

Here, petitioner can make no convincing claim of erosion of federal policy that is not common to all decisions rejecting a defendant’s Batson claim. The fourth category therefore does not apply. See Florida v. Thomas, 532 U. S. 774, 780 (2001). “A contrary conclusion would permit the fourth exception to swallow the rule.” Flynt v. Ohio, 451 U. S. 619, 622 (1981) (per curiam).

The present case comes closest to fitting in the third Cox category, but ultimately falls outside of it. That category involves “those situations where the federal claim has been finally decided, with further proceedings on the merits in the state courts to come, but in which later review of the federal issue cannot be had, whatever the ultimate outcome of the case.” Cox, supra, at 481. In the event that the California Court of Appeal on remand affirms the judgment of conviction, petitioner could once more seek review of his Batson claim in the Supreme Court of California — albeit unsuccessfully — and then seek certiorari on that claim from this Court.

Compliance with the provisions of §1257 is an essential prerequisite to our deciding the merits of a case brought here under that section. It is our obligation to raise any question of such compliance on our own motion, even though counsel has not called our attention to it. See, e. g., Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 384 (1884). But as the present case illustrates, we are not always successful in policing this gatekeeping function without the aid of counsel.

Part of the problem was that the California Court of Appeal’s decision was certified by that court for partial publication. It addressed the Wheeler/Batson claim in the published portion. 105 Cal. Rptr. 2d 727 (2001). In the unpublished portion, the court briefly addressed petitioner’s evidentiary claims to provide guidance for the trial court on retrial, and noted that it would not address whether petitioner’s objections were properly preserved or consider petitioner’s prosecutorial misconduct claim. App. 58. Petitioner appended only the published portion of the California Court of Appeal’s decision to his petition for a writ of certiorari. This Court’s Rule 14.1(i) instructs petitioners to include, inter alia, any “relevant opinions ... entered in the case” in the appendix to the petition for certiorari. The full opinion of the California Court of Appeal was not filed in this Court until the joint appendix to the briefs on the merits was filed. App. 58-112. Had the full opinion been brought to this Court’s attention, it might have been more evident to us that the Supreme Court of California’s decision was not final for the purposes of § 1257.

A petition for certiorari must demonstrate to this Court that it has jurisdiction to review the judgment. This Court’s Rule 14.1(g). And a respondent has a duty to “address any perceived misstatement of fact or law in the petition that bears on what issues properly would be before the Court if certiorari were granted.” Rule 15.2. Our Rules also require that each party provide a statement for the basis of our jurisdiction in its brief on the merits. Rule 24.1(e). At all stages in this case, both parties represented that our jurisdiction was proper pursuant to § 1257(a). Pet. for Cert. 1; Brief in Support 1; Brief for Petitioner 1; Brief for Respondent 1.

It behooves counsel for both petitioner and respondent to assure themselves that the decision for which review is sought is indeed a “[f]inal judgment]” under § 1257. Such attention is mandated by our Rules and will avoid the expenditure of resources of both counsel and of this Court on an abortive proceeding such as the present one.

We dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered.


text:
    MIDDLETON, WARDEN v. McNEIL
    No. 03-1028.
    Decided May 3, 2004
   Per Curiam.

I

Respondent Sally Marie McNeil killed her husband after an argument over his infidelity and spending habits. The State of California charged her with murder. Respondent’s theory at trial was that her husband had tried to strangle her during the argument, but that she had escaped, fetched a shotgun from the bedroom, and killed him out of fear for her life. Fingernail marks were indeed found on her neck after the shooting. She testified that her husband had been abusive, and a defense expert opined that she suffered from Battered Women’s Syndrome. The State countered with forensic evidence showing that the fingernail marks were not her husband’s and may have been self-inflicted, and with the testimony of a 911 operator who overheard respondent tell her husband she had shot him because she would no longer tolerate his behavior.

Under California law, “[mjurder is the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought.” Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 187(a) (West 1999). The element of malice is negated if one kills out of fear of imminent peril. In re Christian S., 7 Cal. 4th 768, 773, 872 P. 2d 574, 576 (1994). Where that fear is unreasonable (but nevertheless genuine), it reduces the crime from murder to voluntary manslaughter — a doctrine known as “imperfect self-defense.” Ibid. At respondent’s trial, the judge instructed the jury on these concepts as follows:

“The specific intent for voluntary manslaughter, as opposed to murder, must arise upon one of [the] following circumstances:
“ ‘[A]n honest but unreasonable belief in the necessity to defend oneself against imminent peril to life or great bodily injury. That would be imperfect self-defense.
“ ‘To establish that a killing is murder [and] not manslaughter, the burden is on the People to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of murder and that the act which caused the death was not done . . . in the honest, even though unreasonable, belief in the necessity to defend against imminent peril to life or to great bodily injury.
“ ‘A person, who kills another person in the actual but unreasonable belief in the necessity to defend against imminent peril to life or great bodily injury, kills unlawfully, but is not guilty of murder. This would be so even though a reasonable person in the same situation, seeing and knowing the same facts, would not have had the same belief. Such an actual but unreasonable belief is not a defense to the crime of voluntary manslaughter.
“ ‘An “imminent” peril is one that is apparent, present, immediate and must be instantly dealt with, or must so appear at the time to the slayer as a reasonable person.’ ” App. to Pet. for Cert. 31-33.

The last four words of this instruction — “‘as a reasonable person’” — are not part of the relevant form instruction, 1 California Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 5.17 (6th ed. 1996), and were apparently included in error. The prosecutor’s closing argument, however, correctly stated the law.

Respondent was convicted of second-degree murder and appealed on the basis of the erroneous jury instruction. The California Court of Appeal acknowledged the- error but upheld her conviction, reasoning:

“[R]eversal is not required because ‘[e]rror cannot be predicated upon an isolated phrase, sentence or excerpt from the instructions since the correctness of an instruction is to be determined in its relation to the other instructions and in light of the instructions as a whole.’ Here, when all of the jury instructions on voluntary manslaughter and imperfect self-defense, are considered in their entirety, it is not reasonably likely that the jury would have misunderstood the requirements of the imperfect self-defense component of voluntary manslaughter. On the contrary, these instructions repeatedly informed the jury that if the defendant had an honest (or actual) but unreasonable belief in the need to act in self-defense, then the offense would be manslaughter and the defendant could not be convicted of murder. Furthermore, in arguing to the jury, the prosecutor set forth the appropriate standard, stating ‘[i]f you believe it is an imperfect self-defense, that she actually believed but that a reasonable person would not believe in the necessity for self-defense, that lessens the crime to what is called, “voluntary manslaughter.’”” App. to Pet. for Cert. 33-34 (citations omitted).

Respondent then sought federal habeas relief. The District Court denied her petition, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. 344 F. 3d 988 (2003). We now grant the State’s petition for a writ of certiorari and respondent’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and reverse.

II

A federal court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner if a state court’s adjudication of his constitutional claim was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). “Where, as here, the state court’s application of governing federal law is challenged, it must be~shown to be not only erroneous, but objectively unreasonable.” Yarborough v. Gentry, 540 U. S. 1, 5 (2003) (per curiam); see Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 409 (2000).

In a criminal trial, the State must prove every element of the offense, and a jury instruction violates due process if it fails to give effect to that requirement. See Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510, 520-521 (1979). Nonetheless, not every ambiguity, inconsistency, or deficiency in a jury instruction rises to the level of a due process violation. The question is “ ‘whether the ailing instruction ... so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.’ ” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U. S. 62, 72 (1991) (quoting Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U. S. 141, 147 (1973)). “ ‘[A] single instruction to a jury may not be judged in artificial isolation, but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge.’” Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370, 378 (1990) (quoting Cupp, supra, at 146-147). If the charge as a whole is ambiguous, the question is whether there is a “ ‘reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” Estelle, supra, at 72 (quoting Boyde, supra, at 380).

The Ninth Circuit held that the erroneous imminent-peril instruction “eliminated” respondent’s imperfect self-defense claim, and that the state court unreasonably applied federal law by “completely ignoring] unchallenged and uncorrected instructions to the jury.” 344 F. 3d, at 999. It acknowledged that it was bound to consider the jury charge as a whole, but held that the other instructions were irrelevant because “[t]he only time that the trial judge actually defined imminent peril for the jury was in the erroneous instruction on imperfect self-defense.” Id., at 997.

This conclusion failed to give appropriate deference to the state court’s décision. Contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s description, the state court did not “ignorfej” the faulty instruction. It merely held that the instruction was not reasonably likely to have misled the jury given the multiple other instances (at least three, see supra, at 434-435) where the charge correctly stated that respondent’s belief could be unreasonable. App. to Pet. for Cert. 34. Given three correct instructions and one contrary one, the state court did not unreasonably apply federal law when it found that there was no reasonable likelihood the jury was misled.

The Ninth Circuit thought that the other references to unreasonableness were irrelevant because they were not part of the definition of “imminent peril.” That alone does not make them irrelevant; whether one defines imminent peril in terms of an unreasonable belief or instead describes imperfect self-defense as allowing an unreasonable belief in imminent peril, the import of the instruction is the same. Perhaps the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the erroneous definition of “imminent peril” caused the jury to believe that the earlier, correct instructions (“actual but unreasonable belief in the necessity to defend against imminent peril”) meant that, although the belief in the necessity to defend may be unreasonable, the belief in the existence of the “imminent peril” may not. This interpretation would require such a rare combination of extremely refined, lawyerly parsing of an instruction, and extremely gullible acceptance of a result that makes no conceivable sense, that the state court’s implicit rejection of the possibility was surely not an unreasonable application of federal law.

The Ninth Circuit also faulted the state court for relying on the prosecutor’s argument, noting that instructions from a judge are presumed to have moré influence than arguments of counsel. 344 F. 3d, at 999 (citing Boyde, supra, at 384). But this is not a case where the jury charge clearly says one thing and the prosecutor says the opposite; the instructions were at worst ambiguous because they were internally inconsistent. Nothing in Boyde precludes a state court from assuming that counsel’s arguments clarified an ambiguous jury charge. This assumption is particularly apt when it is the prosecutor’s argument that resolves an ambiguity in favor of the defendant

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

It is so ordered.