Supreme Court Lengthens Time Frame to Challenge Agency Rules

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision on July 1 that will increase the amount of time CEOs and businesses have to challenge federal agency regulations.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, noted that the dissent “warns that today’s opinion will devastate the functioning of the federal government. … This claim is baffling—indeed, bizarre—in a case about a statute of limitations.”

We’ve gathered articles on the news from SHRM Online and other outlets.

High Court Ruling and Dissent

In Corner Post Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the court ruled that a six-year statute of limitations for filing Administrative Procedure Act (APA) lawsuits begins to run when a regulation first affects a company, rather than when it’s first issued.

In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the decision, along with Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, erodes the power of administrative agencies.

(The New York Times and The Hill)

Chevron Deference Overruled

In Loper Bright Enterprises, the Supreme Court overruled the so-called Chevron deference to federal agencies’ regulations. Employers may have to follow fewer regulations and could be in a better position to challenge rules from federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) now that the U.S. Supreme Court has overruled a 1984 decision that held courts should defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws passed by Congress.

(SHRM Online)

Contemporary Harm Starts the Clock on APA Claims

In Corner Post, the Supreme Court on Monday revived a lawsuit by a North Dakota truck stop that is challenging the fees that banks can charge for debit-card transactions. The ruling could have deeper implications for other government regulations.

“Today’s ruling is especially significant in light of Friday’s decision overruling Chevron because it means that even old agency rules can be challenged anew so long as they produce any contemporary harm,” said Steve Vladeck, Supreme Court analyst for CNN and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

(CNN)