October Term 2023
No. 22-1008

Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Petitioner Corner Post, Inc. · Respondent Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Reporter
603 U.S. ___ (2024)
From
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
How it got here
writ of <i>certiorari</i>

Does a plaintiff’s claim under the Administrative Procedure Act “first accrue” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule, or when the rule first causes harm to the plaintiff?

Question before the Court

What happened

The case concerns the interchange fees associated with debit card transactions, which generate billions of dollars in revenue for issuing banks. The regulatory agency, the Board of the Federal Reserve System, promulgated a rule (“Regulation II”) to govern these fees. Regulation II caps the fees that banks can charge for each debit card transaction. Petitioners in the case include Corner Post, a convenience store, the North Dakota Retail Association (NDRA), and the North Dakota Petroleum Marketers Association (NDPMA), all of whom accept debit card payments and are thus affected by interchange fees. On April 29, 2021, the North Dakota Retail Association (NDRA) and the North Dakota Petroleum Marketers Association (NDPMA) challenged Regulation II as arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). After the Board moved to dismiss the case based on the statute of limitations, NDRA and NDPMA amended their complaint to add Corner Post, Inc. as an additional plaintiff. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that the 2015 clarification to Regulation II did not reset the statute of limitations, that Corner Post's statute of limitations began in 2011 with the original publication of Regulation II, and that none of the plaintiffs’ claims warranted equitable tolling. The Merchants appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

6–3 for Corner Post
with the majority concurring in dissent recused filed an opinion
How the vote aligned with ideology

6–0.

Liberal Conservative
voted with the majority dissented

A narrow margin — the Court split hard on this one. Read the concurrences carefully.

The opinions 3

Justice Barrett, for the Court

Amy Coney Barrett

Joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.

Justice Kavanaugh, concurring

Brett M. Kavanaugh

Joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.

Justice Jackson, dissenting

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.

The holding

An Administrative Procedures Act claim does not accrue for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §2401(a) until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The text of 28 U.S.C. §2401(a) states that a civil action against the United States must be filed "within six years after the right of action first accrues." The Court interpreted this language according to its traditional meaning in the context of statutes of limitations, concluding that a right of action "accrues" when the plaintiff has a "complete and present cause of action"—that is, when the plaintiff has the right to file suit and obtain relief. For an Administrative Procedures Act claim, this requires both final agency action (as specified in 5 U.S.C. § 704) and an injury to the plaintiff (as required by 5 U.S.C. § 702). The Court rejected arguments that APA claims should be treated differently from other civil actions against the government, emphasizing that § 2401(a) uses standard accrual language that had a well-settled meaning when it was enacted in 1948. The Court also distinguished § 2401(a) from other statutes that explicitly start the clock at the time of final agency action, noting that Congress chose different language for §2401(a). By interpreting "accrues" consistently with its traditional meaning, the Court concluded that an APA claim does not accrue until the plaintiff has both experienced an injury and the agency action causing that injury has become final. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion in full and wrote a separate concurrence. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Argued by

For the petitioner
  • Bryan K. Weir for the Petitioner
For the respondent
  • Benjamin W. Snyder for the Respondent

Case path

  1. Sep 29, 2023 granted
  2. Feb 20, 2024 argued
  3. Jul 1, 2024 decided

Read the opinions