The Supreme Court ruled in favor of giving companies more time to challenge regulations, stating that the six-year statute of limitations begins when a regulation first affects a company rather than when it is first issued. The decision could have significant implications for executive agencies and administrative law, particularly following a recent decision overturning the Chevron deference doctrine. The vote was split 6-3 along ideological lines, with dissenting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressing concerns about the potential impact on the power of administrative agencies.
The case in question, Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, involved a challenge to a 2011 regulation on debit-card swipe fees brought by two trade associations in 2021. The associations later added a third plaintiff, Corner Post, a truck stop and convenience store that had opened in 2018. The lawsuit argued that the six-year clock should have started running when the regulation first affected the company, as it did not yet exist during the initial issuance of the regulation. Despite these arguments, lower courts had previously dismissed the case.
During the oral arguments in February, Justice Elena Kagan raised questions about the potential implications of extending the statute of limitations in conjunction with overturning the Chevron doctrine. A government attorney acknowledged that such a decision could have far-reaching consequences, potentially affecting a wide range of agency regulations dating back several decades. The government cautioned that allowing a broader set of potential plaintiffs to bring belated challenges to agency regulations could have significant ramifications.
The decision in Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System comes at a time when the Supreme Court has been grappling with several cases challenging the power of administrative agencies. Justice Jackson described the ruling, along with the case on Chevron deference, as part of a broader assault on the power of such agencies. She warned that the wave of lawsuits against agencies could potentially disrupt the functioning of the federal government. The ruling is likely to spark further debate and analysis on the balance of power between executive agencies and the judiciary.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case represents a significant development in administrative law and the relationship between companies and regulatory agencies. By extending the statute of limitations for filing challenges to regulations, the Court has potentially opened the door for more companies to contest regulations that impact their operations. The ruling has sparked concerns about the potential consequences for the functioning of the federal government and could have a lasting impact on the landscape of administrative law. As the Court continues to grapple with cases challenging the power of executive agencies, the implications of this decision will likely be closely scrutinized in legal and policy circles.
