Supreme Court Ruling Opens Door to Challenges of Longstanding Federal Regulations

In a decision with far-reaching implications for federal agencies and regulated industries, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that challenges to agency regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) can be brought years or even decades after a rule is issued.

The 6-3 ruling in Corner Post v. Federal Reserve Board holds that the 6-year statute of limitations for APA lawsuits begins running only when a plaintiff is injured by a regulation, not when the rule is published. This overturns the approach taken by most lower courts, which had started the clock at the time of a rule’s issuance.

“An APA claim does not accrue for purposes of the 6-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority.

The case involved a challenge to a 2011 Federal Reserve rule capping debit card fees, brought in 2021 by Corner Post, a North Dakota convenience store that opened in 2018. Lower courts had dismissed the suit as untimely, but the Supreme Court’s ruling allows it to proceed.

Business groups praised the decision as allowing new market entrants to challenge unfair regulations. But critics, including the three dissenting justices, warned it could lead to perpetual uncertainty around federal rules.

“The majority has announced open season” on agency regulations, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in dissent. “No matter how entrenched, heavily relied upon, or central to the functioning of our society a rule is, the majority has announced open season.”

The ruling is expected to spark a wave of legal challenges to longstanding federal regulations across a range of industries and policy areas. Agencies and regulated entities will need to prepare for the possibility that rules they have long considered settled may now be subject to court scrutiny.