Opening the Floodgates? The Supreme Court Creates Another Path to Challenging Agency Rules
On the last day of the 2023–24 term, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System—and held that a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act does not accrue for purposes of the six-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.
Background
Corner Post, Inc. is a convenience store and truck stop in North Dakota that opened in 2018. In 2021, Corner Post sued the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), challenging a Board rule adopted in 2011 that governs certain fees for debit-card transactions.
The Eighth Circuit held that Corner Post’s APA claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Those claims “first accrue[d]” when the Board issued the rule in 2011—even though Corner Post did not open for business until seven years later. As a result, Corner Post’s limitations period expired in 2017—a year before it opened for business.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on a single question: Does a plaintiff’s APA claim “first accrue[]” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule—regardless of whether that rule injures the plaintiff on that date—or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer[] legal wrong” or be “adversely affected or aggrieved”?
The Court’s Decision
In yet another 6-3 decision, this time authored by Justice Barrett, the Court held that a claim accrues when the plaintiff has the right to assert it in court—and in the case of the APA, when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.
The Court held that a right of action under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (the provision that sets forth the default six-year statute of limitations applicable to suits against the United States) “accrues” when a plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action. Because a plaintiff cannot sue and obtain relief until they suffer an injury from a final agency action, the Court held that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until that litigant is injured.
As a practical matter, this means that administrative agencies can be sued long after final agency rules take effect. Justice Jackson described the consequence of the Court’s decision in her dissent: “After today, even the most well-settled agency regulations can be placed on the chopping block. And please take note: The fallout will not stop with new challenges to old rules involving the most contentious issues of today. Any established government regulation about any issue—say, workplace safety, toxic waste, or consumer protection—can now be attacked by any new regulated entity within six years of the entity’s formation.”
Impacts of recent Court decisions on agencies and executive departments
This term’s triumvirate of Jarkesy, Loper Bright Enterprises, and Corner Post is likely to result in a substantial increase in litigation against regulatory agencies, including challenges to federal regulations dating back decades.
As described in Jenner’s June 28 client alert, several key arenas will be particularly impacted, including:
-
- Energy and the environment
- Financial and economic oversight
- Communications
- Native American law
- New and evolving technologies, including artificial intelligence, social media, and crypto
Clients facing any form of regulatory scrutiny would benefit from a holistic understanding of these decisions as applied to their unique circumstances.
The Court’s Decision
In yet another 6-3 decision, this time authored by Justice Barrett, the Court held that a claim accrues when the plaintiff has the right to assert it in court—and in the case of the APA, when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.
The Court held that a right of action under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (the provision that sets forth the default six-year statute of limitations applicable to suits against the United States) “accrues” when a plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action. Because a plaintiff cannot sue and obtain relief until they suffer an injury from a final agency action, the Court held that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until that litigant is injured.
As a practical matter, this means that administrative agencies can be sued long after final agency rules take effect. Justice Jackson described the consequence of the Court’s decision in her dissent: “After today, even the most well-settled agency regulations can be placed on the chopping block. And please take note: The fallout will not stop with new challenges to old rules involving the most contentious issues of today. Any established government regulation about any issue—say, workplace safety, toxic waste, or consumer protection—can now be attacked by any new regulated entity within six years of the entity’s formation.”
Impacts of recent Court decisions on agencies and executive departments
This term’s triumvirate of Jarkesy, Loper Bright Enterprises, and Corner Post is likely to result in a substantial increase in litigation against regulatory agencies, including challenges to federal regulations dating back decades.
As described in Jenner’s June 28 client alert, several key arenas will be particularly impacted, including:
-
- Energy and the environment
- Financial and economic oversight
- Communications
- Native American law
- New and evolving technologies, including artificial intelligence, social media, and crypto
Clients facing any form of regulatory scrutiny would benefit from a holistic understanding of these decisions as applied to their unique circumstances.
Related Lawyers
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
On the last day of the 2023–24 term, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System—and held that a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act does not accrue for purposes of the six-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.
Background
Corner Post, Inc. is a convenience store and truck stop in North Dakota that opened in 2018. In 2021, Corner Post sued the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), challenging a Board rule adopted in 2011 that governs certain fees for debit-card transactions.
The Eighth Circuit held that Corner Post’s APA claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Those claims “first accrue[d]” when the Board issued the rule in 2011—even though Corner Post did not open for business until seven years later. As a result, Corner Post’s limitations period expired in 2017—a year before it opened for business.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on a single question: Does a plaintiff’s APA claim “first accrue[]” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule—regardless of whether that rule injures the plaintiff on that date—or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer[] legal wrong” or be “adversely affected or aggrieved”?
The Court’s Decision
In yet another 6-3 decision, this time authored by Justice Barrett, the Court held that a claim accrues when the plaintiff has the right to assert it in court—and in the case of the APA, when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.
The Court held that a right of action under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (the provision that sets forth the default six-year statute of limitations applicable to suits against the United States) “accrues” when a plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action. Because a plaintiff cannot sue and obtain relief until they suffer an injury from a final agency action, the Court held that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until that litigant is injured.
As a practical matter, this means that administrative agencies can be sued long after final agency rules take effect. Justice Jackson described the consequence of the Court’s decision in her dissent: “After today, even the most well-settled agency regulations can be placed on the chopping block. And please take note: The fallout will not stop with new challenges to old rules involving the most contentious issues of today. Any established government regulation about any issue—say, workplace safety, toxic waste, or consumer protection—can now be attacked by any new regulated entity within six years of the entity’s formation.”
Impacts of recent Court decisions on agencies and executive departments
This term’s triumvirate of Jarkesy, Loper Bright Enterprises, and Corner Post is likely to result in a substantial increase in litigation against regulatory agencies, including challenges to federal regulations dating back decades.
As described in Jenner’s June 28 client alert, several key arenas will be particularly impacted, including:
-
- Energy and the environment
- Financial and economic oversight
- Communications
- Native American law
- New and evolving technologies, including artificial intelligence, social media, and crypto
Clients facing any form of regulatory scrutiny would benefit from a holistic understanding of these decisions as applied to their unique circumstances.
The Court’s Decision
In yet another 6-3 decision, this time authored by Justice Barrett, the Court held that a claim accrues when the plaintiff has the right to assert it in court—and in the case of the APA, when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.
The Court held that a right of action under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (the provision that sets forth the default six-year statute of limitations applicable to suits against the United States) “accrues” when a plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action. Because a plaintiff cannot sue and obtain relief until they suffer an injury from a final agency action, the Court held that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until that litigant is injured.
As a practical matter, this means that administrative agencies can be sued long after final agency rules take effect. Justice Jackson described the consequence of the Court’s decision in her dissent: “After today, even the most well-settled agency regulations can be placed on the chopping block. And please take note: The fallout will not stop with new challenges to old rules involving the most contentious issues of today. Any established government regulation about any issue—say, workplace safety, toxic waste, or consumer protection—can now be attacked by any new regulated entity within six years of the entity’s formation.”
Impacts of recent Court decisions on agencies and executive departments
This term’s triumvirate of Jarkesy, Loper Bright Enterprises, and Corner Post is likely to result in a substantial increase in litigation against regulatory agencies, including challenges to federal regulations dating back decades.
As described in Jenner’s June 28 client alert, several key arenas will be particularly impacted, including:
-
- Energy and the environment
- Financial and economic oversight
- Communications
- Native American law
- New and evolving technologies, including artificial intelligence, social media, and crypto
Clients facing any form of regulatory scrutiny would benefit from a holistic understanding of these decisions as applied to their unique circumstances.
Related Lawyers
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Amanda Shafer Berman to Speak on Energy and Administrative Law at WEN-DC Webinar
As the Supreme Court's new Term begins, Jenner & Block Partner Amanda Shafer Berman will join a Women's Energy Network of Washington, DC (WEN-DC) webinar on how the Court's decisions are shaping the energy sector.
October 14, 2026
Publications
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman Quoted in Bloomberg Law on Senate Permitting Overhaul Bill
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman was quoted in an October 5 Bloomberg Law article, "Permitting Deal Gives Projects Defense Against Litigation Delays," on the Senate's new permitting overhaul package and its expected impact on litigation over federal permitting reversals.
October 2026
Event
Partner John Storino to Speak at Sandpiper Partners' “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable”
On October 8, Partner John Storino will serve as a panelist at the “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable,” hosted by Sandpiper Partners in Chicago.
October 8, 2026
Event
Partner Meghan Greenfield to Speak on Supreme Court Climate Case at Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference
On Wednesday, October 7, Partner Meghan Greenfield will speak on a panel titled "Boulder County v. Suncor Energy: What the Supreme Court's Climate Case Means for the Energy Industry" at the Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.
October 7, 2026
Publications
The Form Rules Everything: A Seventh Circuit Ruling on ERISA's Substantial Compliance Doctrine
Partner Joseph Torres and Special Counsel Jennifer Beach authored an article for Employee Relations Law Journal examining the Seventh Circuit's decision in Packaging Corp. of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees v. Langdon, a ruling that addresses both the standard of review in ERISA interpleader actions and the continued viability of the substantial compliance doctrine for changing plan beneficiaries.
October 5, 2026