In the 2003 case of Andrew J. Kontrick v. Robert A. Ryan, the US Supreme Court ruled that time limitations for filing complaints objecting to a debtor's discharge in bankruptcy proceedings are not jurisdictional but instead are claim-processing rules which can be forfeited if not timely raised by a party. The case arose when Andrew Kontrick filed for bankruptcy and Robert Ryan, as executor of an estate with claims against Kontrick, objected to his discharge after the deadline had passed due to alleged fraud on part of Kontrick during their business dealings prior to his declaration of bankruptcy. Despite missing the deadline set out in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4004(a), Ryan argued that this rule was jurisdictional and therefore could not be waived or forfeited under any circumstances; however, both lower courts disagreed with him. The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed these decisions stating that such deadlines serve procedural rather than jurisdictional purposes and thus may be waived if they're not promptly asserted by parties involved in litigation.

In the dissenting opinion for Andrew J. Kontrick v. Robert A. Ryan, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's interpretation of Rule 8(c) was too broad and not in line with its original intent or historical application. He contended that this rule should be seen as a claim-processing rule rather than jurisdictional, meaning it does not determine whether a court has authority to hear a case but instead guides how claims are processed within the legal system once they have been accepted by the court. The justice believed that treating Rule 8(c) as jurisdictional would unnecessarily complicate proceedings and potentially lead to unfair outcomes if litigants were barred from raising defenses due to procedural errors rather than substantive issues with their cases.