The Supreme Court has made a significant decision regarding the time frame for challenging regulations, which could have far-reaching implications. The ruling states that the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits against regulations starts when the regulation first affects a company, rather than when it is initially issued. This decision, made in the case of Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, could potentially open the floodgates for more challenges to regulations.
This case is part of a series of challenges to the power of executive agencies that the Supreme Court has been hearing this term. The ruling, with a 6 to 3 vote along ideological lines, could also build on a recent decision that overturned the Chevron doctrine. This doctrine required courts to defer to executive agencies’ interpretations of statutes, and its reversal could further empower companies to challenge regulations.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, expressing concerns about the potential impact of this decision on administrative agencies. She warned that the increase in lawsuits against agencies authorized by recent decisions could severely disrupt the functioning of the federal government.
The case in question involved a challenge to a 2011 regulation on debit-card swipe fees by two trade associations in 2021. The addition of a third plaintiff, Corner Post, a business that opened in 2018, raised the issue of when the statute of limitations should start running. The argument was that the six-year clock should begin when the regulation first impacts the company, not when it is issued.
During the court proceedings, questions were raised about the implications of extending the statute of limitations in conjunction with the overturning of the Chevron doctrine. The potential retroactive application of such changes to regulations adopted over the years by agencies was highlighted, showing the magnitude of the decision’s impact.
The government, in its brief to the Supreme Court, expressed concerns about the broader set of potential plaintiffs that could pursue challenges to agency regulations if the challengers’ approach was accepted. This could lead to a significant increase in lawsuits against regulations, further complicating the regulatory landscape.
Adam Liptak, a legal expert covering the Supreme Court, has been closely following these developments. His insights and analysis provide valuable context to the complex legal issues at play in these cases. As the implications of this decision unfold, it will be interesting to see how companies and agencies navigate the changing regulatory environment shaped by the Supreme Court’s recent rulings.
