Mr. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner, a seaman, brought this suit in admiralty alleging in the first count a cause of action based on negligence and unseaworthiness, while in the second count he sought maintenance and cure. He alleged the actionable wrongs to have taken place in November and December .of 1945, but. he did not file his libel until January 22, 1948.
The Act which gives to seamen employed by the United States on government-owned vessels the same rights as those employed on privately owned and operated American vessels provides that claims like those of the petitioner, “. . . if administratively disallowed in whole or in part . . .,” may be enforced pursuant to the provisions of the Suits in Admiralty Act. That Act in turn provides that any suit thereunder “. . . shall be brought within two years after the cause of action arises. ...” Courts of Appeals have rendered conflicting decisions as to whether the date of injury or the date of disallowance of the claim commences the period of limitation. The District Court dismissed this petitioner’s complaint on the ground set up by the Government that it was not filed within two years from the dates of his injuries. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed on the same ground, adhering to its view expressed in an earlier case, and, it subsequently developed, in agreement with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The contention of the petitioner is that he could not sue until his claim had been administratively disallowed, and that he had no “cause of action” until he could sue. Accordingly, he argues that the period of limitations cannot start to run until his claim has been administratively disallowed because only then does his “cause of action” arise. In his support he points to Thurston v. United States, 179 P. 2d 514, in which the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in accord with his present contentions.
We find ourselves unable to agree with petitioner and the Ninth Circuit, for we think it clear that the proper construction of the language used in the Suits in Admiralty Act is that the period of limitation is to be computed from the date of the injury. It was enacted several years before suits such as the present, on dis-, allowed claims, were authorized. Certainly during those years the limitation depended upon the event giving-rise to the claims, not upon the rejection. When later the right to sue was broadened to include such claims as this, there was no indication of any change in the limitation contained in the older Act. While, as the court below pointed out, legislation for the benefit of seamen is to be construed liberally in their favor, it is equally true that statutes which waive immunity of the United States from suit are to be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign. Since no time is fixed within which the seaman is obliged to present his claim, under petitioner’s position he would have it in his power, by delaying its filing, to postpone indefinitely commencement of the running of the statute of limitations and thus to delay indefinitely knowledge by the Government that a claim existed. We cannot construe the Act as giving claimants an option as to when they will choose to start the period of limitation of an action against the United States. Accordingly, we hold that the statute of limitations runs from the date of the injury, and affirm the court below.
It is to be observed that the regulations applicable to the filing of such a claim provide that, if it is not rejected in writing within sixty days from filing, it shall be presumed to have been administratively disallowed and the claimant shall be entitled to enforce his claim. The record filed with us does not disclose when petitioner’s claim was filed or, with precision, when it was disallowed. In view of that state of the record making it uncertain whether the point would have any effect bn the outcome and the fact that petitioner has not raised the point, we find it inappropriate to consider whether the statute of limitations is tolled for a maximum of sixty days while a claim is pending and not disallowed either by notice or by operation of the regulations.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas think that, for reasons stated in Thurston v. United States, 179 F, 2d 514, the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the claim was disallowed and would therefore reverse this judgment.
Mr. Justice Minton took no part.in the.consideration or decision of this cáse.
Clarification Act of March 24, 1943, § 1 (a), 57 Stat. 45, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1291 (a).
Suits in Admiralty Act, § 5, 41 Stat. 526, 46 U. S. C. § 745.
91 F. Supp. 593.
186 F. 2d 227; Rodinciuc v. United States, 175 F. 2d 479, 481 (C. A. 3d Cir.); Gregory v. United States, 187 F. 2d 101, 103 (C. A. 2d Cir.).
United States v. Michel, 282 U. S. 656, 659; United States v. Shaw, 309 U. S. 495, 500-501; United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S. 584, 586-587.
General Order 32, Administrator, War Shipping Administration, 8 Fed. Reg. 5414, 46 CFR § 304.26.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations