Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors

2024-07-01
Share:

Headline: Limits timing for suing federal agencies: Court rules APA challenges begin when a person or business is injured by a final agency rule, allowing later suits from new entrants to proceed in court.

Holding: An APA claim accrues for the six‑year statute when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action, not merely when the agency action becomes final.

Real World Impact:
  • Lets businesses sue over old agency rules if they are injured later.
  • Reopens challenges to long‑standing rules by new market entrants.
  • Could increase regulatory uncertainty for agencies and businesses.
Topics: debit card fees, administrative law, statute of limitations, regulatory challenges, small business impact

Summary

Background

Corner Post is a truckstop and convenience store that opened in 2018 and pays debit‑card interchange fees set by banks and payment networks. Congress told the Federal Reserve Board in 2010 to make sure those fees are reasonable and proportional, and the Board issued Regulation II in 2011 setting a per‑transaction cap. Corner Post joined a 2021 lawsuit arguing that Regulation II allows higher fees than Congress intended. The District Court and the Eighth Circuit said the suit was too late because the six‑year deadline to sue the United States begins when a final rule is published.

Reasoning

The Court’s central question was when the six‑year deadline begins for a claim brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, the law that lets people challenge federal rules. The Court said an APA claim does not count for that deadline until the plaintiff has a full cause of action — which in APA cases happens when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. The Court explained that the APA requires both an injury and final agency action for review, so the six‑year clock starts when a person or business is actually harmed by the rule. The Court reversed the Eighth Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The decision lets businesses and others bring broad challenges that attack a rule itself even if the rule was issued more than six years earlier, so long as the challenger was injured later. This is a timing ruling, not a final decision on Regulation II’s legality, so the legal fight over debit‑card fees will continue in lower courts. Congress could change the filing deadline if it wants a different rule.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kavanaugh concurred and emphasized that courts can cancel unlawful agency rules to give relief; Justice Jackson dissented, warning the ruling invites endless challenges and urged Congress to act.

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?

Related Cases