Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
| Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 20, 2024 | |
| Full case name | Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System |
| Docket no. | 22-1008 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Case 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 Assoc. 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 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." | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Administrative law of the United States |
|---|
 |
| General |
| Statutory framework |
| Regulatory coordination |
| Judicial review of agency action |
| Separation of powers |
| Related areas of law (and agencies) |
| Related topics |
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is a pending 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 is 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.
Most courts of appeals to decide the 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 is 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 is 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[edit]
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.
Supreme Court[edit]
The Supreme Court granted review by writ of certiorari on September 29, 2023.[8] The case is expected to be decided during the 2023 term by summer 2024.[8]
References[edit]
- ^ 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.)).
- ^ Id. (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)).
- ^ .
- ^ a b Kalvis Golde, North Dakota truck stop objects to federal allowance for debit-card processing fees, SCOTUSblog (May 13, 2023).
- ^ Kimberly Strawbridge, Debit Card Fee Rule a New Challenge for Justices on Agency Power, Bloomberg Law (September 29, 2023).
- ^ Id. ("The outcome, depending on how the court rules, could clear the way for challenges to regulations years or even decades after they take effect.").
- ^ Lawrence Hurley & Emily Stephenson, Supreme Court rejects challenge to debit card 'swipe fees' rules, Reuters (January 20, 2015).
- ^ a b Amy Howe, Twelve cases added to Supreme Court calendar, SCOTUSblog (Sep. 29, 2023).