U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART VI— PARTICULAR PROCEEDINGS › Chapter CHAPTER 161— UNITED STATES AS PARTY GENERALLY

28 U.S.C. § 2409a

Real property quiet title actions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The United States may be named as a party defendant in a civil action under this section to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest, other than a security interest or water rights. This section does not apply to trust or restricted Indian lands, nor does it apply to or affect actions which may be or could have been brought under sections 1346, 1347, 1491, or 2410 of this title, sections 7424, 7425, or 7426 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (26 U.S.C. 7424, 7425, and 7426), or section 208 of the Act of July 10, 1952 (43 U.S.C. 666).(b) The United States shall not be disturbed in possession or control of any real property involved in any action under this section pending a final judgment or decree, the conclusion of any appeal therefrom, and sixty days; and if the final determination shall be adverse to the United States, the United States nevertheless may retain such possession or control of the real property or of any part thereof as it may elect, upon payment to the person determined to be entitled thereto of an amount which upon such election the district court in the same action shall determine to be just compensation for such possession or control.(c) No preliminary injunction shall issue in any action brought under this section.(d) The complaint shall set forth with particularity the nature of the right, title, or interest which the plaintiff claims in the real property, the circumstances under which it was acquired, and the right, title, or interest claimed by the United States.(e) If the United States disclaims all interest in the real property or interest therein adverse to the plaintiff at any time prior to the actual commencement of the trial, which disclaimer is confirmed by order of the court, the jurisdiction of the district court shall cease unless it has jurisdiction of the civil action or suit on ground other than and independent of the authority conferred by section 1346(f) of this title.(f) A civil action against the United States under this section shall be tried by the court without a jury.(g) Any civil action under this section, except for an action brought by a State, shall be barred unless it is commenced within twelve years of the date upon which it accrued. Such action shall be deemed to have accrued on the date the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest knew or should have known of the claim of the United States.(h) No civil action may be maintained under this section by a State with respect to defense facilities (including land) of the United States so long as the lands at issue are being used or required by the United States for national defense purposes as determined by the head of the Federal agency with jurisdiction over the lands involved, if it is determined that the State action was brought more than twelve years after the State knew or should have known of the claims of the United States. Upon cessation of such use or requirement, the State may dispute title to such lands pursuant to the provisions of this section. The decision of the head of the Federal agency is not subject to judicial review.(i) Any civil action brought by a State under this section with respect to lands, other than tide or submerged lands, on which the United States or its lessee or right-of-way or easement grantee has made substantial improvements or substantial investments or on which the United States has conducted substantial activities pursuant to a management plan such as range improvement, timber harvest, tree planting, mineral activities, farming, wildlife habitat improvement, or other similar activities, shall be barred unless the action is commenced within twelve years after the date the State received notice of the Federal claims to the lands.(j) If a final determination in an action brought by a State under this section involving submerged or tide lands on which the United States or its lessee or right-of-way or easement grantee has made substantial improvements or substantial investments is adverse to the United States and it is determined that the State’s action was brought more than twelve years after the State received notice of the Federal claim to the lands, the State shall take title to the lands subject to any existing lease, easement, or right-of-way. Any compensation due with respect to such lease, easement, or right-of-way shall be determined under existing law.(k) Notice for the purposes of the accrual of an action brought by a State under this section shall be—(1) by public communications with respect to the claimed lands which are sufficiently specific as to be reasonably calculated to put the claimant on notice of the Federal claim to the lands, or(2) by the use, occupancy, or improvement of the claimed lands which, in the circumstances, is open and notorious.(l) For purposes of this section, the term “tide or submerged lands” means “lands beneath navigable waters” as defined in section 2 of the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301).(m) Not less than one hundred and eighty days before bringing any action under this section, a State shall notify the head of the Federal agency with jurisdiction over the lands in question of the State’s intention to file suit, the basis therefor, and a description of the lands included in the suit.(n) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit suits against the United States based upon adverse possession.(Added Pub. L. 92–562, § 3(a), Oct. 25, 1972, 86 Stat. 1176; amended Pub. L. 99–514, § 2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095; Pub. L. 99–598, Nov. 4, 1986, 100 Stat. 3351.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Section 208 of the Act of July 10, 1952, referred to in subsec. (a), is section 208(a) to (d) of act July 10, 1952, ch. 651, 66 Stat. 560. Section 208(a) to (c) is classified to section 666 of Title 43, Public Lands. Section 208(d) is not classified to the Code.

Amendments

1986—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–514 substituted “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” for “Internal Revenue Code of 1954”.

Subsecs. (c) to (n). Pub. L. 99–598 added subsecs. (c) and (h) to (m), redesignated former subsecs. (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) as (d), (e), (f), (g), and (n), respectively, and inserted “, except for an action brought by a State,” in subsec. (g).

Short Title

This section is popularly known as the “Quiet Title Act”.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 754 cases (159 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: San Juan Cnty., Utah v. United States, 503 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
San Juan Cnty., Utah v. United States, 503 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). · cites it 16× “24 to this case, we must first determine whether granting SUWA intervention under this rule would infringe upon sovereign immunity in litigation under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, enacted in 1972. The Federal Rules, of course, ordinarily govern proceedings in federal…”
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (2012). · cites it 11× “” 28 U. S. C. §2409a(a). That language, the argument goes, encompasses all actions contesting the Government’s legal interest in land, regard- less whether the plaintiff claims ownership himself.”
North Dakota ex rel. Stenehjem v. United States, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1039 (D.N.D. 2017). · cites it 36× “In the motions before the Court, the United States seeks to dismiss the complaints of North Dakota and the Counties for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claims are untimely under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a. The United States argues the Plaintiffs’…”
Block v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273 (1983). · cites it 10× “1176, codified at 28 U. S. C. § 2409a, 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (f), and 28 U.”
United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 (1998). · cites it 8× “28 U. S. C. § 2409a. We hold that respondents were not entitled to relief on either of these grounds.”
Kingman Reef Atoll Investments, L.L.C. v. United States, 541 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 7× “*1192 IKUTA, Circuit Judge: Kingman Reef Atoll Investments, LLC (KRAI), filed this action against various United States departments and officers in their official capacities (collectively, the “United States”), pursuant to the Quiet Title Act (QTA), 28 U.S.C. § 2409a. KRAI seeks…”
United States v. Wells, 873 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2017). · cites it 5× “27, 2010) (unpublished), that criminal defendants do not have “standing” to raise an unadjudicated R.”
N. New Mexicans Protecting Land Water & Rights v. United States, 161 F. Supp. 3d 1020 (D.N.M. 2016). · cites it 18× “As the Supreme Court has stated: “The limitations period is a central condition of the consent given by the Act.”
Wilkins v. United States, 598 U.S. 152 (2023). · cites it 4× “28 U. S. C. § 2409a. Congress conditioned this consent on, among other things, a 12-year statute of limita- tions: “Any civil action under this section, except for an ac- tion brought by a State, shall be barred unless it is com- menced within twelve years of the date upon which…”
Alf Key v. Mrs. Louise P. Wise, 629 F.2d 1049 (5th Cir. 1980). · cites it 11× “Less than a month before a hearing on those motions was held, however, Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 2409a and 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (f).”
Park Cnty., Montana, & Sweet Grass Cnty., Montana v. United States of Am., Cross Creek Prot. Ass'n, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee, 626 F.2d 718 (9th Cir. 1980). · cites it 11× “Appellants 1 appeal from the dismissal of the defendant, United States, and the motion for summary judgment of defendantintervenor, Cross Creek Protective Association, under the provisions of the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a) 2 and (f) 3 . We affirm.”
Arthur J. Fulcher, Jr. v. United States, 632 F.2d 278 (4th Cir. 1980). · cites it 12× “They hold that the district court has jurisdiction and that the complaint states a claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2409a. Two members of the court dissent.”
Show all 754 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a) — 222 cases
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (2012). “” 28 U. S. C. §2409a(a). That language, the argument goes, encompasses all actions contesting the Government’s legal interest in land, regard- less whether the plaintiff claims ownership himself.”
Oneida Indian Nation v. Cnty. of Oneida, 617 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2010).
Block v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273 (1983). “1176, codified at 28 U. S. C. § 2409a, 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (f), and 28 U.”
San Juan Cnty., Utah v. United States, 503 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). “24 to this case, we must first determine whether granting SUWA intervention under this rule would infringe upon sovereign immunity in litigation under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, enacted in 1972. The Federal Rules, of course, ordinarily govern proceedings in federal…”
United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834 (1986).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a)(QTA) — 1 case
San Juan Cnty. v. United States, 420 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2005).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(b) — 44 cases
San Juan Cnty., Utah v. United States, 503 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). “24 to this case, we must first determine whether granting SUWA intervention under this rule would infringe upon sovereign immunity in litigation under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, enacted in 1972. The Federal Rules, of course, ordinarily govern proceedings in federal…”
United States v. Drinkwater, 434 F. Supp. 457 (E.D. Va. 1977).
Downstate Stone Co., an Illinois Corp. v. United States of Am., 651 F.2d 1234 (7th Cir. 1981).
United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834 (1986).
Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, 333 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2003).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(c) — 7 cases
Tooele Cnty. v. United States, 820 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2016).
City of Sault Ste. Marie, Mich. v. Andrus, 458 F. Supp. 465 (D.D.C. 1978).
City & Cnty. of Denver, Etc. v. Bergland, 517 F. Supp. 155 (D. Colo. 1981).
Kinscherff v. United States, 586 F.2d 159 (10th Cir. 1978).
Tudor v. Members of Arkansas State Parks, 83 F.R.D. 165 (E.D. Ark. 1979).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(d) — 64 cases
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (2012). “” 28 U. S. C. §2409a(a). That language, the argument goes, encompasses all actions contesting the Government’s legal interest in land, regard- less whether the plaintiff claims ownership himself.”
San Juan Cnty., Utah v. United States, 503 F.3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). “24 to this case, we must first determine whether granting SUWA intervention under this rule would infringe upon sovereign immunity in litigation under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a, enacted in 1972. The Federal Rules, of course, ordinarily govern proceedings in federal…”
N. New Mexicans Protecting Land Water & Rights v. United States, 161 F. Supp. 3d 1020 (D.N.M. 2016). “As the Supreme Court has stated: “The limitations period is a central condition of the consent given by the Act.”
United States v. Wells, 873 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2017). “27, 2010) (unpublished), that criminal defendants do not have “standing” to raise an unadjudicated R.”
Ken McMaster v. United States, 731 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2013).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(e) — 31 cases
SAMUEL C. JOHNSON 1988 v. Bayfield Cnty., Wis., 520 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2008).
Kingman Reef Atoll Investments, L.L.C. v. United States, 541 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2008). “*1192 IKUTA, Circuit Judge: Kingman Reef Atoll Investments, LLC (KRAI), filed this action against various United States departments and officers in their official capacities (collectively, the “United States”), pursuant to the Quiet Title Act (QTA), 28 U.S.C. § 2409a. KRAI seeks…”
Leisnoi, Inc. v. United States, 170 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 1999).
Leisnoi, Inc. v. United States of Am., Omar Stratman, Applicant in Intervention-Appellant, 313 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2002).
Kane Cnty., Utah v. United States, 772 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2014).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(f) — 82 cases
Block v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch. Lands, 461 U.S. 273 (1983). “1176, codified at 28 U. S. C. § 2409a, 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (f), and 28 U.”
Park Cnty., Montana, & Sweet Grass Cnty., Montana v. United States of Am., Cross Creek Prot. Ass'n, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee, 626 F.2d 718 (9th Cir. 1980). “Appellants 1 appeal from the dismissal of the defendant, United States, and the motion for summary judgment of defendantintervenor, Cross Creek Protective Association, under the provisions of the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a) 2 and (f) 3 . We affirm.”
United States v. Wells, 873 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2017). “27, 2010) (unpublished), that criminal defendants do not have “standing” to raise an unadjudicated R.”
United States v. Frank J. Gammache, Jr., 713 F.2d 588 (10th Cir. 1983).
United States v. Mottaz, 476 U.S. 834 (1986).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g) — 180 cases
United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 (1998). “28 U. S. C. § 2409a. We hold that respondents were not entitled to relief on either of these grounds.”
Wilkins v. United States, 598 U.S. 152 (2023). “28 U. S. C. § 2409a. Congress conditioned this consent on, among other things, a 12-year statute of limita- tions: “Any civil action under this section, except for an ac- tion brought by a State, shall be barred unless it is com- menced within twelve years of the date upon which…”
Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633 (2010).
Kwai Wong v. David Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2013).
Kingman Reef Atoll Investments, L.L.C. v. United States, 541 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2008). “*1192 IKUTA, Circuit Judge: Kingman Reef Atoll Investments, LLC (KRAI), filed this action against various United States departments and officers in their official capacities (collectively, the “United States”), pursuant to the Quiet Title Act (QTA), 28 U.S.C. § 2409a. KRAI seeks…”
— 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(h) — 1 case
Hawaii Ex Rel. Attorney Gen. v. United States, 676 F. Supp. 1024 (D. Haw. 1988).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(i) — 7 cases
North Dakota ex rel. Stenehjem v. United States, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1039 (D.N.D. 2017). “In the motions before the Court, the United States seeks to dismiss the complaints of North Dakota and the Counties for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claims are untimely under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a. The United States argues the Plaintiffs’…”
San Juan Cnty., Utah v. United States, 754 F.3d 787 (10th Cir. 2014).
Calhoun Cnty. Texas v. United States, 132 F.3d 1100 (5th Cir. 1998).
N. Mariana Islands v. United States, 399 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2005).
State of Alaska v. United States (D. Alaska 2023).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(k) — 5 cases
North Dakota ex rel. Stenehjem v. United States, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1039 (D.N.D. 2017). “In the motions before the Court, the United States seeks to dismiss the complaints of North Dakota and the Counties for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claims are untimely under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a. The United States argues the Plaintiffs’…”
Calhoun Cnty. Texas v. United States, 132 F.3d 1100 (5th Cir. 1998).
Hawaii Ex Rel. Attorney Gen. v. United States, 676 F. Supp. 1024 (D. Haw. 1988).
State of Hawaii, by Its Attorney Gen., on Behalf of the Dep't of Hawaiian Home Lands & the Hawaiian Homes Comm'n v. United States, 866 F.2d 313 (9th Cir. 1989).
Lewis v. United States (D.N.D. 2022).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(k)(1) — 1 case
McKenzie Cnty., ND v. United States, 131 F.4th 877 (8th Cir. 2025).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(k)(2) — 2 cases
North Dakota ex rel. Stenehjem v. United States, 257 F. Supp. 3d 1039 (D.N.D. 2017). “In the motions before the Court, the United States seeks to dismiss the complaints of North Dakota and the Counties for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the claims are untimely under the Quiet Title Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a. The United States argues the Plaintiffs’…”
Hawaii Ex Rel. Attorney Gen. v. United States, 676 F. Supp. 1024 (D. Haw. 1988).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(m) — 1 case
Alaska v. United States, 546 U.S. 413 (2006).
— 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(n) — 23 cases
Sullivan v. Maddox, 122 So. 3d 75 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013).
Burlison v. United States, 533 F.3d 419 (6th Cir. 2008).
Wisconsin Valley Improvement Co. v. United States, 569 F.3d 331 (7th Cir. 2009).
Paul G. Shultz v. Dep't of Army, United States of Am., 10 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 1993).
Cavin v. United States, 956 F.2d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.