SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Truck Stop Suing the Federal Reserve

0:00

/1861

1×

Facts

• The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled Monday that the six-year statute of limitations — under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) — for plaintiffs harmed by a federal regulation to sue federal agencies begins at the time of the injury, not when the policy was implemented.¹
• The plaintiff in this case was a North Dakota truck stop called Corner Post, which sought to sue the Federal Reserve (Fed) over its policy surrounding credit and debit card transaction fees banks are allowed to charge.²
• As the transaction fee policy was implemented in 2010, Corner Post, which first opened in 2018, argued that it should still be allowed to sue the Fed over the policy even though it wasn't around for the first seven years of the regulation's issuance.¹
• Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that under the current statute, 'only those fortunate enough to suffer an injury within six years of a rule's promulgation' can file a lawsuit.' She added, 'Everyone else...has no recourse.'²
• In dissent, liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that this ruling, alongside other recent rulings limiting federal agency powers, 'has the potential to devastate the functioning of the federal government' due to 'the tsunami of lawsuits against agencies' that could unfold.³

Sources: ¹The Hill, ²CNN and ³New York Times.

Narratives

• Left narrative, as provided by Common Dreams. This ruling isn't about legal interpretations or the rights of plaintiffs — the conservative majority simply wanted to give businesses the ability to sue the federal government out of existence. Now that agencies tasked with protecting our food, water, and workplaces are set to face an onslaught of right-wing lawsuits, it's incumbent upon Congress to codify the proper statute of limitations into law again.
• Right narrative, as provided by Fedsoc. The Administrative Procedure Act states that the six-year statute of limitations begins when 'the right of action first accrues.' Since the right of action is talking about the right of a plaintiff to sue for injury, that right can only possibly begin once a business is under the purview of the regulation. Even the Fed has acknowledged this fact, and it's shown no evidence that the wording of the law means anything different in this case.

Predictions