Why did the Supreme Court set a 3-year time-frame? Sebelius v Auburn Regional Medical Center
<p>In Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, the decision was that (a) the jurisdiction really did not belong to the agency but to the legislation and so they didn't agree to there being a 180 time limit and (b) that the time limit should be no more than 3 years.</p>

<p>My question is if the legislature should have jurisdiction to decide the time-limit then why did they dictate 3 years instead of asking the legislature to set it.  Were they just trying to save some time by coming up with an appropriate time-frame?</p>

<p>Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved March 11, 2018, from <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-1231" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/11-1231</a></p>

<p>Because:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The Secretary of Health and Human Services regulation allowing a 3-year extension for good cause was permissible, as courts must defer to agency regulations unless they are "arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute." The general presumption in favor of equitable tolling does not apply to an agency's internal deadline, absent evidence of congressional intent, so the Court could not extend the deadline indefinitely.</p>
</blockquote>

jurisdiction