US Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett reportedly began her announcement of the decision in Corner Post Inc. v. Board of Governors with a quip that the case—about when an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim begins to accrue for statute of limitations purposes—wasn’t the one that people were there to hear.
But while that day’s significant decision on presidential immunity from criminal prosecution garnered public attention, the court’s decision in favor of Corner Post has far-reaching implications for Americans, specifically those affected by administrative actions.
Corner Post, a retailer, contended that the Federal Reserve improperly calculated the maximum fees merchants must pay on debit card transactions and sought judicial review. Lower courts had dismissed the case as time-barred under the six-year statute of limitations applicable to APA claims. The crux of the APA allows for judicial review of actions by administrative agencies, which are integral components of the executive branch.
The government asserted that the six-year period starts to run as soon as an agency acts, and most lower courts supported this interpretation. In this case, the agency action was the Federal Reserve’s publication of a maximum fee regulation in 2011. However, Corner Post didn’t open until 2018, a year after the statute of limitations had ostensibly expired under the government’s analysis.
The Supreme Court, however, rejected the government’s argument, interpreting the text of the statute to mean that an APA plaintiff’s cause of action doesn’t accrue until the plaintiff is injured by the agency’s action. This interpretation aligns with the plain meaning of the statute. Given the expansive role of the administrative state, this decision ensures that litigants can access judicial review—a fundamental provision of the APA.
The government has several doctrines at its disposal to prevent courts from reviewing the merits of APA cases, including doctrines related to standing, ripeness, mootness, and statutes of limitations. While these restrictions serve purposes of administrability and efficiency, they can sometimes unfairly prevent diligent plaintiffs with strong arguments from getting a hearing.
This decision underscores that some limitation periods begin to run from the time of the relevant event, such as the issuance of a regulation. The default statute of limitations that applies to suits against the U.S. requires complaints to be brought within six years after the right of action first accrues, and under the APA, it begins only when the plaintiff is injured.
The nonpartisan nature of this decision indicates its broader applicability. Corner Post’s argument was that the government hadn’t regulated enough, and the ruling benefits any new or newly affected plaintiff seeking to challenge federal agency actions, whether related to environmental regulations, permitting decisions, or labor rules.
This term’s administrative law opinions reflect a separation of powers theme, with both the majority and dissent recognizing that Congress could legislate a different timeframe for challenging government actions. Given the vast authority conferred upon the administrative state, the responsibility for oversight often falls on Americans impacted by regulations, making the APA’s judicial review provision indispensable.
During the 1946 congressional consideration of the APA, then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick McCarran described it as a “bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated” by federal agencies. That perspective remains relevant today, as the Corner Post decision bolsters the ability of Americans to challenge administrative decisions that affect their daily lives.
Further insights and analysis can be found here.