Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors
Headline: Limits on deadline for challenging agency rules: Court rules APA lawsuits accrue when a person is injured by a final rule, allowing later-arriving businesses to sue within six years of their injury.
Holding: The Court held that an APA claim for purposes of the six-year statute of limitations does not accrue until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action, so the six-year clock runs from that injury.
- Allows businesses to sue within six years of when they are injured by a final rule.
- Reopens some long-settled regulations to new legal challenges.
- Resolves circuit split about when APA claims start the limitations clock.
Summary
Background
Corner Post is a truckstop and convenience store in North Dakota that opened in 2018 and accepts debit cards. Debit-card interchange fees are paid by merchants and the Federal Reserve Board issued Regulation II in 2011 to cap those fees under a 2010 law. Corner Post joined a 2021 lawsuit arguing the regulation allows higher fees than the statute permits. A district court dismissed the suit as barred by the general six-year deadline for suits against the United States, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Reasoning
The Court addressed when an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim “accrues” for the six-year limit in 28 U. S. C. § 2401(a). It held that a claim accrues when the plaintiff has a complete cause of action — for APA suits, that is when the plaintiff is injured by a final agency action and thus can sue and obtain relief. The Court relied on the statutory text, historical usage, and precedent about accrual, rejected the Board’s argument that the clock starts at rule publication, reversed the Eighth Circuit, and sent the case back for further proceedings.
Real world impact
The ruling means merchants and other parties may bring facial challenges (lawsuits asking courts to strike down a rule entirely) within six years of when they are harmed by a final rule, not necessarily within six years of the rule’s publication. The decision resolves a split among federal appeals courts and changes when agencies and regulated entities can expect finality. The opinion decides only the timing of challenges, not whether Regulation II is lawful; the case returns to lower courts for merits review.
Dissents or concurrances
A concurrence emphasized that vacating an unlawful agency rule is the way unregulated but harmed parties obtain relief. A dissent warned that the majority’s rule lets new entrants mount perpetual challenges and undermines regulatory stability.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?