In a landmark 6-3 decision on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that a North Dakota truck stop, Corner Post, can bring a legal challenge against a Federal Reserve Board regulation despite the rule being issued 13 years ago. The ruling, which splits the justices along ideological lines, substantially extends the timeframe in which plaintiffs can sue federal agencies. The court decided that the statute of limitations to contest a federal agency’s action begins only when the plaintiff is injured by the action, not when the regulation is originally issued (Howe on the Court).
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett stated that the case was “straightforward,” noting that Corner Post did not suffer injury from the Federal Reserve’s 2011 rule until it commenced operations in 2018. Therefore, the lawsuit falls within the permissible six-year period for legal challenges. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the dissenting judges, warned that the ruling could generate “staggering” consequences, compounded by the recent elimination of the Chevron doctrine.
Barrett rebutted concerns that the ruling might cause administrative disruptions by arguing that the language of the statute was clear and that Congress could have specifically indicated when the limitations period should begin, but chose not to. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred, elaborating that federal courts possess the power to invalidate rules more broadly, not just for specific challengers.
Conversely, Jackson argued that the decision effectively removes any limitations period for lawsuits challenging agency regulations, which could destabilize established regulations across sectors like workplace safety and consumer protection. She underscored that Congress may need to intervene to specify a definitive timeline for such legal challenges.
For further details, read the full article here.