InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

The Supreme Court held, by a 6–3 vote, that the statute of limitations does not start running until the particular plaintiff has been harmed by the agency action.

144 S. Ct. 2440 · No. 22-1008 · 2023 term · Roberts Court

Decided Jul 1, 2024 · argued Feb 20, 2024

Economic activity · Miscellaneous economic regulation

Majority opinion: Amy Barrett

The voteMajorityDissent

6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Reversed and remanded. Corner Post won.

What this ruling means

Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Corner Post was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 603 U.S. 799 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case about the statute of limitations for judicial review of federal agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. The legal question under review was whether a challenge to the validity of a rule must be brought within six years of the rule's issuance—or instead within six years of when the rule first injures the particular plaintiff challenging the rule. The Supreme Court held, by a 6–3 vote, that the statute of limitations does not start running until the particular plaintiff has been harmed by the agency action.

The lawsuit was a challenge to a 2011 regulation of the Federal Reserve Board setting the maximum fees that large banks can charge merchants for a debit-card transaction, but the question before the Supreme Court was limited to whether the case was properly dismissed because of the statute of limitations. Beyond the particular case, this has wider significance for whether federal regulations more than six years old can still be challenged for procedural defects in their enactment.

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2023 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianSotomayorK. JacksonKaganJ. RobertsKavanaughBarrettGorsuchAlitoThomas

Majority(6)

Dissent(3)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
Corner PostBusiness, corporation
Respondent
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve SystemFederal Reserve Board of Governors
Reached the Court by
Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Why it was taken
Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Administrative Procedure, or Administrative Orders Review
Kind of law
Federal Statute
Decided by
Statutory construction
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Jul 1, 2024DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: reversed and remanded. Corner Post won.
  2. Feb 20, 2024ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  3. Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
  4. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit: affirmed.
  5. Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the North Dakota U.S. District Court.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

18 other argued cases since 1946 on miscellaneous economic regulation, newest first.

  1. Kennedy v. Braidwood Management145 S. Ct. 2427Jun 27, 2025 · 145 S. Ct. 2427Economic activity6–36–3 band

  2. Biden v. Nebraska600 U.S. 477Jun 30, 2023 · 600 U.S. 477Economic activity6–36–3 band

  3. Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation142 S. Ct. 2354Jun 24, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 2354Economic activity5–45–4 band

  4. Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. Davita142 S. Ct. 1968Jun 21, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1968Economic activity7–27–2 band

  5. American Hospital Association v. Becerra142 S. Ct. 1896Jun 15, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1896Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  6. Biden v. Missouri142 S. Ct. 647Jan 13, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 647Economic activity5–45–4 band
  7. National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration142 S. Ct. 661Jan 13, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 661Economic activity6–36–3 band
  8. Allison Engine Company, Inc., et al. v. United States ex rel. Roger L. Sanders and Roger L. Thacker553 U.S. 662Jun 9, 2008 · 553 U.S. 662Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  9. John Bridge, et al. v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. et al553 U.S. 639Jun 9, 2008 · 553 U.S. 639Economic activity9–0Unanimous band

  10. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Philadelphia Gear Corp.476 U.S. 426May 27, 1986 · 476 U.S. 426Economic activity6–36–3 band
  11. United States v. Clark et al.454 U.S. 555Jan 13, 1982 · 454 U.S. 555Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  12. Zuber et al. v. Allen et al.396 U.S. 168Dec 9, 1969 · 396 U.S. 168Economic activity4–27–2 band
  13. Federal Housing Administration v. the Darlington, Inc.358 U.S. 84Nov 24, 1958 · 358 U.S. 84Economic activity5–36–3 band
  14. United States v. McNinch, Doing Business As Home Comfort Co., et al.356 U.S. 595May 26, 1958 · 356 U.S. 595Economic activity8–18–1 band
  15. Rainwater et al., Doing Business As R. S. Rainwater & Sons, et al. v. United States356 U.S. 590May 26, 1958 · 356 U.S. 590Economic activity9–0Unanimous band
  16. O'Neill v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.348 U.S. 956Mar 7, 1955 · 348 U.S. 956Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
  17. Federal Trade Commission v. Rhodes Pharmacal Co., Inc. et al.348 U.S. 940Feb 14, 1955 · 348 U.S. 940Economic activity8–0Unanimous band
  18. County Board of Arlington County et al. v. State Milk Commission.346 U.S. 932Jan 18, 1954 · 346 U.S. 932Economic activity8–18–1 band
Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.