In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the six-year statute of limitations outlined in § 2401(a) applicable to actions brought under relevant provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) begins to run when a plaintiff is injured by agency action and not on the date of the agency’s final action. In Corner Post, Inc., Petitioner v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), the court resolved a split of the circuit courts by holding that “[a]n APA claim does not accrue for purposes of § 2401(a)’s six-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.” Put another way, § 2401(a)’s six-year statute of limitation for claims made against the United States begins to run “when the plaintiff has the right to bring suit in court” because that is the date “the right of action first accrues.”

Background of the Case Before the Supreme Court

The underlying lawsuit was initially brought in federal court in 2021 by two large trade groups, approximately 10 years after the Federal Reserve Board finalized Regulation II. Regulation II set forth “interchange fees” for debit card transactions, which are per-transaction fees merchants paid to banks that issued the debit cards when such debit cards are used by customers to purchase goods or services. The maximum interchange fee per transaction is set by the Federal Reserve Board. See 76 Fed. Reg. 43394, 43420 (2011).

Corner Post, a truck stop and convenience store in North Dakota that was incorporated in 2017 and began operations in 2018 — approximately seven years after the rule at issue was promulgated — was added to the lawsuit after the government initially moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to § 2401(a)’s six-year statute of limitations.

Because Regulation II determines the maximum interchange fee per transaction that banks may charge merchants, Corner Post is not regulated by Regulation II but is nevertheless impacted by it as an entity that pays banks interchange fees. Thus, Corner Post challenged Regulation II on its face, not as applied. The lower courts dismissed Corner Post’s lawsuit, determining that for actions involving facial challenges to rules like Regulation II, the limitations period begins to run once the regulation at issue is published, which was 10 years before the lawsuit was filed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split of opinions among the circuit courts.

The Supreme Court’s Opinion

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s opinion turned to the interpretation of § 2401(a), which provides: “Except as provided by chapter 71 of title 41, every civil action commenced against the United States shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues.” The court evaluated the meaning of “accrual” in dictionaries and case law, noting that “it is well understood that a claim does not ‘accrue’ as soon as the defendant acts, but only after the plaintiff suffers the injury required to press her claim in court.” The court concluded that “[t]here is good reason to conclude that Congress codified the traditional accrual rule in § 2401(a),” which means that the limitations period begins when the plaintiff has the right to apply for relief. The court determined that “[b]ecause injury, not just finality, is required to sue under the APA, Corner Post’s cause of action was not complete and present until it was injured by Regulation II. Therefore, its suit is not barred by the statute of limitations.”

The dissent took issue with the majority’s “plaintiff specific” approach and noted that “Congress has repeatedly made clear, through various statutory enactments, that in the administrative law context, the statute of limitations for filing a claim that seeks to invalidate the agency action runs from the moment of final agency action.” The dissent argued that the majority’s approach to its interpretation of “accrue” and “the right of action” “overlooks relevant context in all sorts of ways” and not only in the administrative law context. The dissent pondered that the impacts of the majority decision could be “profoundly destabilizing” and that any regulation could essentially be challenged in perpetuity.

Conclusion

In Corner Post, the court makes clear that the limitations period for claims brought under the APA subject to § 2401(a)’s six-year statute of limitations begins not when an agency publishes a final rule but when the plaintiff is first injured by that rule. This means that agency rules could potentially be challenged on their face decades after being promulgated, so long as the plaintiff can show that its claim is brought within six years of first being injured by the regulation.