Supreme Court Ruling on Corner Post vs. Fed: Plaintiffs Can Challenge Regulations After Being Adversely Affected

Watford City, ND, North Dakota United States of America
Corner Post argued that the Fed set the cap on swipe fees higher than what was reasonable under Dodd-Frank Act.
Supreme Court made a landmark decision in favor of Corner Post on July 1, 2024.
The court ruled that the six-year statute of limitations for filing lawsuits under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) does not begin until a plaintiff is adversely affected by the regulation.
The court's ruling reversed a lower court decision that dismissed the case based on statute of limitations grounds.
The decision has significant implications for government regulations and could lead to an increase in regulatory challenges.
Supreme Court Ruling on Corner Post vs. Fed: Plaintiffs Can Challenge Regulations After Being Adversely Affected

The Supreme Court made a landmark decision on Monday, July 1, 2024, in favor of Corner Post, a North Dakota truck stop that challenged the Federal Reserve's regulation on debit-card swipe fees. The court ruled that the six-year statute of limitations for filing lawsuits under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) does not begin until a plaintiff is adversely affected by the regulation.

The decision, which was 6-3 along ideological lines, has significant implications for government regulations and could lead to an increase in regulatory challenges. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented and warned of potential 'tsunami of lawsuits' that could 'devastate the functioning of the Federal Government.'

Corner Post argued that the Fed set the cap on swipe fees higher than what was reasonable under Dodd-Frank Act. The truck stop did not open its doors until 2018, seven years after the regulation was issued, and claimed it should still be able to file a lawsuit.

The court's ruling reversed a lower court decision that dismissed the case based on statute of limitations grounds. It marks another victory for anti-regulatory interests and deals a blow to the growing size of the 'administrative state.'

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority, stating that 'the APA claim does not accrue for purposes of [its] 6-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.' The court held that a plaintiff's injury is an essential element in determining when the clock starts running.

The National Retail Federation, which has been advocating for more competition in the credit card interchange market, praised the decision. Stephanie Martz, NRF's chief administrative officer and general counsel, said that 'a small business harmed by a faulty regulation should not be denied its day in court based on a technicality.'

The ruling could have far-reaching consequences as it sets a precedent for challenging other regulations under the APA. The decision comes at a time when there is growing concern about the size and power of administrative agencies, and some argue that they have overstepped their bounds in recent years.


Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image
Article Image

Confidence

90%

Doubts
  • Are there any unintended consequences that may arise from this decision?
  • Is there any potential backlash from this ruling?

Sources

86%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
(Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

Supreme Court Allows Swipe-Fee Lawsuit in Blow to Regulators

Yahoo Finance Greg Stohr, Monday, 01 July 2024 18:58
  • Unique Points
    • The US Supreme Court ruled in a case over debit-card swipe fees, stating that some regulations can be challenged a decade or more after they were enacted.
    • The ruling could have ramifications across the US government, making a raft of longstanding rules newly vulnerable to challenge in court under the federal Administrative Procedure Act.
    • Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the nation’s highest court had to decide when a claim brought under the APA ‘accrues’, beginning the statute-of-limitations countdown.
    • In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the two decisions, taken together, meant that ‘any new objection to any old rule must be entertained and determined de novo by judges who can now apply their own unfettered judgment as to whether the rule should be voided.’
    • The Fed rule was a product of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which included a provision responding to increases in swipe fee rates, also known as interchange fees.
    • Merchant trade groups quickly sued, contending that the fee cap was too high, and a federal appeals court in Washington largely upheld the rule.
    • A North Dakota convenience store and truck stop named Corner Post Inc. will be able to sue over a 2011 rule governing the charges that banks impose on merchants as they didn’t open until 2018.
  • Accuracy
    • Corner Post is fighting a 2011 Federal Reserve rule that capped interchange fees at 21 cents per transaction plus a small percentage of the transaction's value.
  • Deception (50%)
    The article contains editorializing and pontification by the authors when they write 'The US Supreme Court dealt a fresh blow to the authority of federal agencies' and 'most read from Bloomberg'. These statements are not factual and express the authors' opinions.
    • most read from Bloomberg
    • The US Supreme Court dealt a fresh blow to the authority of federal agencies
  • Fallacies (90%)
    The authors make an appeal to authority by quoting Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion in the case. They also use inflammatory rhetoric when describing the potential ramifications of the ruling, but this does not constitute a logical fallacy as it is their opinion.
    • ]The US Supreme Court dealt a fresh blow to the authority of federal agencies[
    • Voting 6-3 along ideological lines, the justices said a North Dakota convenience store and truck stop can sue over a 2011 rule governing the charges that banks impose on merchants.
    • Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Cony Barrett said
  • Bias (95%)
    The authors use language that depicts the ruling as a 'blow' to regulators and describe the potential ramifications as 'devastating'. They also quote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent in which she expresses concern about the potential for an influx of lawsuits against agencies.
    • Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the rulings could have 'the potential to devastate the functioning of the federal government.'
      • The two decisions, taken together, mean that 'any new objection to any old rule must be entertained and determined de novo by judges who can now apply their own unfettered judgment as to whether the rule should be voided.'
        • The US Supreme Court dealt a fresh blow to the authority of federal agencies, ruling in a case over debit-card swipe fees that some regulations can be challenged a decade or more after they were enacted.
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication

        99%

        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

        Supreme Court lets a truck stop sue the Federal Reserve in latest threat to agency regulations

        CNN News Site: In-Depth Reporting and Analysis with Some Financial Conflicts and Sensational Language John Fritze Monday, 01 July 2024 14:03
        • Unique Points
          • The Supreme Court revived a lawsuit by a North Dakota truck stop, Corner Post, challenging bank debit-card fees in a ruling that could have implications for other government regulations.
          • Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority, with liberal justices in dissent.
          • Corner Post is fighting a 2011 Federal Reserve rule that capped ‘interchange fees’ at 21 cents per transaction plus a small percentage of the transaction’s value.
        • Accuracy
          • The decision is part of the Supreme Court’s trend this term to make it easier for industries to challenge what conservative critics call the ‘administrative state.’
        • Deception (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Fallacies (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Bias (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication

        98%

        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

        The Hill

        The Hill News Site: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate-seethe-republicans-call-for-israeli-elections/ Zach Schonfeld, Monday, 01 July 2024 14:13
        • Unique Points
          • The Supreme Court made it easier to challenge federal regulations on Monday.
          • The court ruled the six-year statute of limitations clock under the Administrative Procedures Act does not start ticking until a plaintiff is adversely affected by the regulation.
          • Corner Post argued that the central bank set the cap higher than the ‘reasonable’ limit directed by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.
          • The truck stop didn’t open its doors until 2018 - seven years after Fed’s regulation - and asserted it should still be able to file suit.
          • Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson read her dissent aloud from the bench, emphasizing her sharp disagreement on the issue.
          • The National Retail Federation celebrated the decision.
          • Stephanie Martz, NRF’s chief administrative officer and general counsel, said that small businesses harmed by faulty regulations should not be denied their day in court based on technicalities.
        • Accuracy
          • The Supreme Court made it easier to challenge federal regulations.
        • Deception (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Fallacies (95%)
          The authors do not commit any formal or informal fallacies in their article. They report on the Supreme Court's decision and its implications without making any erroneous arguments or logical leaps. However, they do make appeals to authority by quoting Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent and the National Retail Federation's statement, but these are valid as they are directly related to the article's topic.
          • ]The Supreme Court made it easier to challenge federal regulations Monday, ruling the six-year statute of limitations clock under the Administrative Procedures Act does not start ticking until a plaintiff is adversely affected by the regulation.[
          • In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the court’s conservative majority ruled the statute of limitations under the act does not begin ‘until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.’[
          • Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson read her dissent aloud from the bench, a practice that emphasizes sharp disagreement on the issue at hand.[
          • The National Retail Federation (NRF) celebrated the decision.[
        • Bias (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication

        98%

        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

        Supreme Court Extends Time Frame for Challenges to Regulations

        The New York Times Adam Liptak Monday, 01 July 2024 14:12
        • Unique Points
          • The Supreme Court has extended the time frame for companies to challenge many regulations, ruling that a six-year statute of limitations for filing lawsuits begins when a regulation first affects a company rather than when it is first issued.
          • Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing that the decision, along with the case on Chevron, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, was part of an assault on the power of administrative agencies.
          • Corner Post is fighting a 2011 Federal Reserve rule that capped interchange fees at 21 cents per transaction plus a small percentage of the transaction’s value.
          • The issue before the Supreme Court was more technical: The government argued Corner Post couldn’t sue over the rule because a six-year statute of limitations had already run out. But Corner Post incorporated in 2017 and claimed that any other outcome would mean a company would be barred from suing over a government regulation before it even began operations.
          • The court’s ruling marks another victory for anti-regulatory interests and deals a blow to the growing size of the ‘administrative state.’
        • Accuracy
          • The swipe-fee lawsuit will go forward even though merchant trade groups lost a similar case they filed soon after the Federal Reserve adopted the rule.
          • Corner Post is fighting a 2011 Federal Reserve rule that capped interchange fees at 21 cents per transaction plus a small percentage of the transaction’s value.
          • The court’s decision reversed a lower court decision to dismiss the complaint as outside the statute of limitations.
        • Deception (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Fallacies (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Bias (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication

        95%

        The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermine the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
        (Site Conflicts Of Interest + Author Conflicts Of Interest) / 2.0 * 0.2 + ArticleBiasScore * 0.20 + UniquePointsScore * 0.05 + DeceptionScore * 0.20 + ReadabilityScore * 0.05 + FallacyScore * 0.20

        A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

        Supreme Court opens door to 'tsunami' of regulatory challenges

        Politico News Site Name: POLITICO Full Legal Name of News Site: Politico LLC Location of News Site: Washington D.C., USA Monday, 01 July 2024 00:00
        • Unique Points
          • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a North Dakota truck stop that challenged years-old regulations on procedural grounds related to the Durbin amendment in the Dodd-Frank law.
          • Corner Post, did not open for business until 2018 but was able to sue due to the court’s decision.
          • Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented and warned of potential ‘tsunami of lawsuits’ that could ‘devastate the functioning of the Federal Government’.
          • The National Retail Federation praised the ruling, stating that a small business harmed by a faulty regulation should not be denied its day in court based on a technicality.
        • Accuracy
          • ,
          • The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling allows companies to sue for final agency action when they are injured by a rule, and the clock starts running when they are first legally hurt by it.
        • Deception (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Fallacies (85%)
          The article reports on a Supreme Court ruling without making any direct fallacious statements. However, it does include an inflammatory quote from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent that could be seen as an appeal to emotion. The author also presents the opposing viewpoint in the form of Justice Jackson's dissent, which can lead to a dichotomous depiction.
          • The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, saying that “an APA claim does not accrue for purposes of [its] 6-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.”
          • Basically, the clock begins when the firm is first legally hurt by the rule.
          • Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent argued that the decision would authorize “a tsunami of lawsuits” with “the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government.”
        • Bias (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication
        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
          None Found At Time Of Publication