Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors, FRS (22-1008)

argument 22-1008

Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors, FRS

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 10m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central dispute between Corner Post and the Federal Reserve over the statute of limitations?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case 22-1008, Corner Post versus the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve

John Weir 0:07

System. Mr. Weir? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Corner Post opened for business in 2018. Since then, it's paid several hundred thousand dollars in debit card fees that it thinks are unlawful. But the government says that Corner Post's clock to challenge those fees actually started in 2011. seven years before Corner Post pumped a single gallon of gas. The government is wrong. Corner Post's clock started when it swiped its first debit card and paid its first fee. That is the right outcome here for three main reasons. First, and most importantly, the text. Section 2401's limitations period starts when a claim, quote, first accrues. This court has said that phrase means the clock starts only once a plaintiff can sue.

John Weir 0:54

And this court has also said that an APA plaintiff can sue only once it's first harmed by regulation. We just want the court to apply those subtle principles. By contrast, the government wants a special rule that contradicts how accrual statutes have worked since at least the 1830s. That government-only carve-out would convert Section 2401 into a repose-based statute like the Hobbs Act. But Congress knows exactly how to craft repose-based statutes when it wants to, and it hasn't done so for APA claims. Second, with no textual foothold, the government resorts to policy arguments. It says that siding with corner posts will undermine reliance interests because it will let plaintiffs challenge rules that are older than six years.

John Weir 1:36

But challenges to those rules already happen all the time in the as-applied context, and the government admits that as-applied challenges have no time limit. Third, if Congress's textual choice leads to outcomes that the government doesn't like, this Court has said that those concerns should be addressed to Congress, not to this Court. This Court's role is simply to enforce the value judgments that Congress has already made. We ask that it do so here. I welcome the Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:01

Do you have any examples of accrual cases or questions where the injury and the unlawful conduct are on different dates?

John Weir 2:14

Well, that's really any typical accrual statute. For example, there are torts where a tort is committed and the cause of action is not complete until later, until the harm is felt. So that's a basic, we think there's nothing remarkable about that fact

Clarence Thomas 2:28

pattern. Well, but how many cases are like yours where the regulation has been adopted, it's final, and you are not yet in business? So it can't apply to you. And so are there any cases like yours? Where the injury is later.

John Weir 2:51

So we think that certainly there are repose-based statutes that would cut off review for someone like us, but the APA is the background rule.

Clarence Thomas 3:02

So do you have any other cases like yours?

John Weir 3:06

So the question being, are there any other accrual-based statutes for agency-specific?

Clarence Thomas 3:10

Where the injury occurs long after the rule is adopted.

John Weir 3:19

So there's the her case and the Sixth Circuit, which starts the circuit split in this context. That's one case where it happened. But I think the question, unless I'm misunderstanding it, Justice Thomas, is are there any other statutes of limitations that operate the way we say that?

Clarence Thomas 3:34

Yes.

John Weir 3:35

So we think that 20, we're not aware.

Clarence Thomas 3:36

Actually, I'm more interested in the fact pattern that we have here. Your business, you have a rule that's adopted. It's final. It's been challenged. Then you go into business, you begin to operate under these rules, and you claim, of course, that's the beginning of your injury. And then, of course, you say that restarts the statute of limitations. That's what I'm interested in.

John Weir 4:05

So — In the regulatory context?

Clarence Thomas 4:08

Yes.

John Weir 4:09

So in the regulatory context, as far as we know, the 2401 is the only rule that applies that way.

Clarence Thomas 4:14

Okay, so if that's the case, do you have an example that is similar to yours?

John Weir 4:20

I think the Herr family.

Clarence Thomas 4:22

So that's the only one?

John Weir 4:24

Well, the lower courts have rejected our reading of 2401, and so there wouldn't be other cases because they would have been time-barred under that rule.