The issue stems from the government's decision to allow public access to the road, resulting in disturbances and adverse effects on the adjacent private properties owned by Wilkins and other residents in the area.

The district court dismissed the complaint, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the failure to file the claim before the expiration of the twelve-year statute of limitations under the Quiet Title Act.

For numerous years, until 2006, Wilkins and Stanton attested that the government adhered to the terms stipulated in the deeds and the magnitude of its easement, and its use of the road did not encroach on their property.

As a result, increased vehicular activity led to disruptive noise, vandalism, trespassing, property theft, and soil erosion due to the unpaved road.

The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the failure to file the claim within the Act's twelve-year statute of limitations.

The Court ultimately found the Government's argument about legislative acquiescence to be unpersuasive, determining that Section 2409a(g) represents a “nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule”.