The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System1 on July 1 with significant implications for agency rulemaking, potentially allowing for long-settled rules to be challenged. Resolving a 6-1 circuit split in favor of the minority position, Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the majority opinion of the court, holding that the statute of limitations for challenging final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) commences upon the actual injury to the plaintiff bringing the action and not upon the finalization of the rule at issue.
Overview of the APA and Applicable Statute of Limitations
The court’s decision in Corner Post focuses on the statute of limitations applicable to challenges to agency rulemaking under the APA. The case addresses the interplay between Sections 702 and 704 of the APA and the six-year statute of limitations applicable to those provisions.
Section 702 of the APA “authorizes persons injured by agency action to obtain judicial review by suing the United States or one of its agencies, officers, or employees.”2 Section 704 of the APA limits the types of agency actions that can be reviewed to only “final agency actions” that occur upon the completion of the agency’s decision-making process.3 Read together, Sections 702 and 704 allow a party injured by a final rulemaking to seek judicial review of the rule.
Such judicial review is not boundless, however. Any such action must be commenced within a six-year period pursuant to the statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2401, which states that “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.”4 Read More...
1 Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, No. 22–1008 (U.S. July 1, 2024).
2 Id. at 4 (citing APA, 5 U.S.C. § 702).
3 Id. at 5 (citing APA, 5 U.S.C. § 704).
4 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a).
Information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice or opinion or as a substitute for the advice of counsel. The articles by these authors may have first appeared in other publications. The content provided is for educational and informational purposes for the use of clients and others who may be interested in the subject matter. We recommend that readers seek specific advice from counsel about particular matters of interest.
© 2024 Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP. All rights reserved.