Supreme Court lets truck stop sue Federal Reserve in latest threat to agency rules

CNN
—

The Supreme Court on Monday resumed a case brought by a North Dakota truck service station challenging the fees banks can charge for debit card transactions, a ruling that could have broader implications for other government regulations.

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

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

“In other words, even a half-century-old understanding of agency power can now be challenged on the grounds that some recent agency actions, no matter how minor, have harmed plaintiffs,” 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 for a 6-3 majority, with the liberal justices dissenting. She rejected the Justice Department’s argument that the statute of limitations runs from the time the regulation is finalized.

“Under the Board’s last resort rule, only those fortunate enough to be injured within six years of the rule’s promulgation may bring suit (under the Administrative Procedure Act). All others — no matter how serious the injury or how unlawful the rule — have no remedy,” Barrett wrote.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized the decision in her dissent.

“The flawed reasoning and far-reaching implications of the Court’s ruling in this case are staggering,” Jackson wrote.

“The majority refuses to accept a plain, common-sense, and eminently plausible reading of the statute of limitations written by Congress. In doing so, the Court is wreaking havoc on government agencies, businesses, and society at large,” she added. “At the end of this momentous term, it is clear: the tsunami of agency lawsuits that the Court has authorized in this case and in Loper Bright has the potential to devastate the functioning of the federal government.”

The Corner Post roadside stop is fighting a 2011 Federal Reserve regulation that limited “interchange fees” to 21 cents per transaction plus a small percentage of the value of that transaction. Retail stores have long been irritated by these 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.

Corner Post, however, was only incorporated in 2017 and argued that the statute of limitations clock only started ticking after it opened its doors. He argued that any other outcome would have meant that the company would not have been allowed to sue over the 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 simply finding a new company willing to sue. A federal district court and the 8th U.S. Court of Appeals sided with the federal government.

This message is urgent and will be updated.