Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Last updated

Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 20, 2024
Decided July 1, 2024
Full case nameCorner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Docket no. 22-1008
Citations603 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Decision Opinion
Case history
PriorCase dismissed, Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, No. 1:21-cv-00095, 2022 WL 909317 (D.N.D. March 11, 2022), affirmed sub nom. North Dakota Retail Ass'n v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 55 F.4th 634 (8th Cir. 2022).
Questions presented
Whether a plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act claim "first accrues" under 28 U.S.C.   § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule — regardless of whether that rule injures the plaintiff on that date — or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to "suffer[] legal wrong" or be "adversely affected or aggrieved."
Holding
An APA claim does not accrue for purposes of §2401(a)'s 6-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityBarrett, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceKavanaugh
DissentJackson, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan
Laws applied
28 U.S.C.   § 2401(a)
Administrative Procedure Act

Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 603 U.S. ___(2024), is a United States Supreme Court case about the statute of limitations for judicial review of federal agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. The legal question under review was whether a challenge to the validity of a rule must be brought within six years of the rule's issuance – or instead within six years of when the rule first injures the particular plaintiff challenging the rule. The Supreme Court held, by a 6–3 vote, that the statute of limitations does not start running until the particular plaintiff has been harmed by the agency action.

Contents

Most courts of appeals tasked with deciding this issue—before the Supreme Court granted review—concluded that the limitation period for pre-enforcement review runs from the date that the rule became effective. Only the Sixth Circuit expressly rejected this prevailing interpretation. [1] However, the prevailing view had been criticized as disregarding the text of the statute, [2] which says that "every civil action commenced against the United States shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues." [3]

The lawsuit was a challenge to a 2011 regulation of the Federal Reserve Board setting the maximum fees that large banks can charge merchants for a debit-card transaction, [4] but the question before the Supreme Court was limited to whether the case was properly dismissed because of the statute of limitations. [5] Beyond the particular case, this has wider significance for whether federal regulations more than six years old can still be challenged for procedural defects in their enactment. [6]

Background

In 2010, Congress enacted the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. One part of the Act, the Durbin amendment, required the Federal Reserve Board to promulgate a regulation limiting fees for debit-card transactions. In 2011, the Board published its final rule, which set the maximum transaction fee at $0.21 plus 0.05% (5 basis points). [4]

Several merchant groups challenged the rule in 2011 in NACS v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System , saying that the fee cap had been set too high. The district judge ruled that the Board had not reasonably complied with the Durbin amendment, but the D.C. Circuit reversed on appeal, upholding the regulation as within the agency's discretion. In 2015, the Supreme Court declined to review the case. [7]

In April 2021, two North Dakota trade associations – the North Dakota Retail Association and the North Dakota Petroleum Marketers Association – filed this case under the name North Dakota Retail Association v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Federal Reserve Board filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, saying that the six-year statute of limitations had elapsed. In response, the trade associations added a third plaintiff, Corner Post, Inc., a truck stop which had first opened in 2018. Nevertheless, the district court dismissed the suit with respect to all three plaintiffs, saying that their claims accrued at the time that the rule was enacted in 2011. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court.

The Supreme Court granted review by writ of certiorari on September 29, 2023. [8]

Supreme Court

Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. [9] The Court held that a "claim accrues when the plaintiff has the right to assert it in court — and in the case of the [ Administrative Procedure Act ], that is when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action." [10]

Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. She said that the majority accepted a simplified definition of accrual, which the Supreme Court had previously said is context specific, even though statutes of limitations in administrative law cases normally ran from final agency action. She also noted that Corner Post and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo – the decision that overturned Chevron deference days earlier – would cause a "tsunami of lawsuits" to old agency regulations whose legal interpretations were previously entitled to deference. [10]

Reactions

Retired judge David Tatel pointed out that this decision means that new businesses can be created for the purpose of challenging government regulations that would otherwise be protected by the statute of limitations. [11]

Related Research Articles

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision, handed down on June 12, 1992, that heightened standing requirements under Article III of the United States Constitution. It is "one of the most influential cases in modern environmental standing jurisprudence." Lily Henning of the Legal Times stated that:

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that set forth the legal test used when U.S. federal courts must defer to a government agency's interpretation of a law or statute. The decision articulated a doctrine known as "Chevron deference". Chevron deference consisted of a two-part test that was deferential to government agencies: first, whether Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at question, and second, "whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute".

Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held an administrative agency may, in some cases, exert jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims.

The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) is an American nonprofit public interest law firm established for the purpose of defending and promoting individual freedom. PLF attorneys provide pro bono legal representation, file amicus curiae briefs, and hold administrative proceedings with the stated goal of supporting property rights, equality and opportunity, and the separation of powers. The organization is the first and oldest libertarian public interest law firm, having been founded in 1973.

Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that an administrative agency's interpretative rules deserve deference according to their persuasiveness. The court adopted a case-by-case test, the Skidmore deference, which considers the rulings, interpretations, and opinions of the administrator. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut, 564 U.S. 410 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–0 decision, held that corporations cannot be sued for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) under federal common law, primarily because the Clean Air Act (CAA) delegates the management of carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Brought to court in July 2004 in the Southern District of New York, this was the first global warming case based on a public nuisance claim.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consumer Financial Protection Bureau</span> United States government agency

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. CFPB's jurisdiction includes banks, credit unions, securities firms, payday lenders, mortgage-servicing operations, foreclosure relief services, debt collectors, and other financial companies operating in the United States. Since its founding, the CFPB has used technology tools to monitor how financial entities used social media and algorithms to target consumers.

United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Little Tucker Act, which provides jurisdiction to federal courts for certain claims brought against the federal government, does not apply to lawsuits brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court. It held that pharmaceutical sales representatives were not eligible for overtime pay. The court ruled in a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that sales representatives were classified as "outside salesmen" who are exempt from the Department of Labor's regulations regarding overtime pay.

The Durbin amendment, implemented by Regulation II, is a provision of United States federal law, 15 U.S.C. § 1693o-2, that requires the Federal Reserve to limit fees charged to retailers for debit card processing. It was passed as part of the Dodd–Frank financial reform legislation in 2010, as a last-minute addition by Dick Durbin, a senator from Illinois, after whom the amendment is named.

Gabelli v. SEC, 568 U.S. 442 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the statute of limitations for filing civil penalty actions initiates when the offending act is committed or finished.

King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Knox v. Service Employees International Union, 567 U.S. 298 (2012), is a United States constitutional law case. The United States Supreme Court held in a 7–2 decision that Dianne Knox and other non-members of the Service Employees International Union did not receive the required notice of a $12 million assessment the union charged them to raise money for the union's political fund. In a tighter 5–4 ruling, the court further held that the long-standing precedent, the First Amendment requirement that non-union members covered by union contracts be given the chance to "opt out" of special fees was insufficient. Setting new precedent, the majority ruled that non-members shall be sent notice giving them the option to opt into special fees.

Menominee Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 577 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified when litigants are entitled to equitable tolling of a statute of limitations. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that the plaintiff in this case was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because they did not demonstrate that "extraordinary circumstances" prevented the timely filing of the lawsuit.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), abbreviated Janus v. AFSCME, is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on US labor law, concerning the power of labor unions to collect fees from non-union members. Under the Taft–Hartley Act of 1947, which applies to the private sector, union security agreements can be allowed by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that such union fees in the public sector violate the First Amendment right to free speech, overruling the 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that had previously allowed such fees.

Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a US Supreme Court case related to the interpretation by an executive agency of its own ambiguous regulations. The case involved a veteran who had been denied some benefits from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs due to the agency's interpretation of its regulations. The case challenges the "Auer deference" established in the 1997 case Auer v. Robbins, in which the judiciary branch of the government normally defers to an agency's own interpretation of its own regulations in resolving matters of law. Lower courts, including the Federal Appeals Circuit Courts, ruled against the veteran, acknowledging the Auer deference.

Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act of 1977. The Court ruled that the statute of limitations begins one year after the alleged FDCPA violation took place, not one year after the violation was discovered by the plaintiff. This ruling affirmed a decision by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. It is noteworthy for being the first signed opinion released from the 2019 term. It is also noteworthy for resolving a circuit split regarding a major consumer protection law.

Peter v. NantKwest Inc., 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2019 term.

McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court held that the 3-year statute of limitations for a fabrication of evidence civil lawsuit under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act begins to run when the criminal case ends in the plaintiff's favor.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in the field of administrative law, the law governing regulatory agencies. Together with its companion case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, it overruled the principle of Chevron deference established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), which had directed courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguity in a law that the agency enforces.

References

  1. ↑ James R. Conde & Michael Buschbacher,  The Little Tucker Act's Statute of Limitations Does Not Govern Garden-Variety Pre-enforcement Suits Under the APA , Yale J. on Regul.: Notice & Comment (September 26, 2023) (citing Herr v. U.S. Forest Serv., 803 F.3d 809, 812 (6th Cir. 2015) (Sutton, J.)).
  2. ↑ Conde & Buschbacher, supra, at 812 (citing John Kendrick, (Un)limiting Administrative Review: Wind River, Section 2401(a), and the Right to Challenge Federal Agencies , 103 Va. L. Rev. 157, 179–202(2017)).
  3. ↑ 28 U.S.C.   § 2401(a) .
  4. 1 2 Kalvis Golde,  North Dakota truck stop objects to federal allowance for debit-card processing fees , SCOTUSblog  (May 13, 2023).
  5. ↑ Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson,  Debit Card Fee Rule a New Challenge for Justices on Agency Power , Bloomberg Law  (September 29, 2023).
  6. ↑ Robinson, supra ("The outcome, depending on how the court rules, could clear the way for challenges to regulations years or even decades after they take effect.").
  7. ↑ Lawrence Hurley & Emily Stephenson,  Supreme Court rejects challenge to debit card 'swipe fees' rules , Reuters  (January 20, 2015).
  8. ↑ Amy Howe,  Twelve cases added to Supreme Court calendar , SCOTUSblog  (Sep. 29, 2023).
  9. ↑ Adam Liptak; Abbie VanSickle (July 1, 2024). "Supreme Court Extends Time Frame for Challenges to Regulations". The New York Times . Archived from the original on July 9, 2024.
  10. 1 2 Greg Stohr,  Supreme Court Allows Swipe-Fee Lawsuit in Blow to Regulators (1) , Bloomberg Law  (July 1, 2024).
  11. ↑ Terry Gross (July 3, 2024). "A retired federal judge reflects on going blind and losing faith in the Supreme Court". NPR.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.