Supreme Court Allows Truck Stop to Sue Federal Reserve in Latest Threat to Agency Regulations – Boston News, Weather, Sports

WASHINGTON (WHDH) – The Supreme Court on Monday revived a lawsuit filed by a North Dakota truck stop challenging the fees banks can charge for debit card transactions, with a ruling that could have deeper implications for other government regulations.

It is the latest Supreme Court decision this term that is expected to make it easier for businesses to challenge what conservative critics call the “administrative state.”

“Today’s ruling is especially significant in light of Friday’s decision to invalidate Chevron, because it means that even the agency’s old rules can be challenged anew to the extent that they cause contemporary harm,” said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Washington. Texas Law School.

“In other words, even a half-century-old understanding of agency authority may now be challenged on the basis that some recent agency action, however minor, harmed a plaintiff,” Vladeck added. “Given how much Friday’s ruling in Loper Bright destabilizes administrative law, today’s ruling applies that destabilization retroactively.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion by a 6-3 majority, with liberal justices dissenting.

The Corner Post truck stop is defying a 2011 Federal Reserve rule that capped “interchange fees” at 21 cents per transaction, plus a small percentage of the value of that transaction. Retailers have long chafed at the fees.

The case before the Supreme Court was more technical: the government argued that the truck fleet could not sue under this provision because the six-year statute of limitations had already expired.

But Corner Post didn’t incorporate until 2017 and argued that the statute of limitations didn’t start ticking until it opened its doors. Any other outcome, he argued, would have meant the company couldn’t sue for government regulation before it even started operating.

The federal government said Corner Post’s position would allow opponents of the regulation to challenge it forever by finding a new company willing to sue. A federal district court and the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the federal government.