Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowThe Supreme Court opened the door Monday to new, broad challenges to regulations long after they take effect, the third blow in a week to federal agencies.
The justices ruled 6-3 in favor of a truck stop in North Dakota that wants to sue over a regulation on debit card swipe fees that the federal appeals court in Washington upheld 10 years ago.
Federal law sets a six-year deadline for broad challenges to regulations. In this case, the regulation from the Federal Reserve governing the fees merchants must pay banks whenever customers use a debit card took effect in 2011.
The deadline for lawsuits over the regulation was in 2017.
Corner Post, a truck stop in Watford City in western North Dakota, didn’t open its doors until 2018.
Still, a federal appeals court dismissed the challenge as too late.
The company appealed to the Supreme Court. The Biden administration had urged the court to uphold the dismissal because otherwise, governmental agencies would be subject to endless challenges.
The decision could take on new significance in the wake of last week’s ruling that overturned the 1984 Chevron decision that made it easier to uphold regulations across a wide swath of American life. The court also stripped the Securities and Exchange Commission of a major tool to fight securities fraud.
Chief Justice John Roberts captured the dilemma facing the court when the Corner Post case was argued in February. Agencies could face repeated challenges “10 years later, 20 years later” and “sort of have to create the universe, you know, repeatedly.”
On the other hand, Roberts said, “You have an individual or an entity that is harmed by something the government is doing, and you’re saying, well, that’s just too bad, you can’t do anything about it because other people had six years to do something about it.”
The legal principle that everybody is entitled to their day in court, Roberts said, “doesn’t say unless somebody else had a day in court.”
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
What a power grab by the Supreme Court.
Actually, the power grab was by unelected federal functionaries who constantly have acted beyond their purview. The Supreme Court is merely reigning it in. Progressives don’t like it because they have been able, until now, to enact by administrative decree what they cannot get through congress.
not a power grab – a power redistribution. People take priority over the state. Having unchallengeable regulations seems almost un-American.
This is an incentive for federal agencies to write rules are well-within the bounds of the law. Good step by SCOTUS.
The people elected representatives who wrote a law that regulations could be challenged for six years.
The people also elect presidents and legislators who could appoint new regulators to modify those regulations and even defund those agencies.
So stop with all the administrative decree garbage and telling us “people over the state”.
Power distribution? The power is being redistributed to the billionaires who are buying these changes via the cases they are funding and the justices they have paid off.
The legal principle that everybody is entitled to their day in court, Roberts said, “doesn’t say unless somebody else had a day in court.”
Yet this SCOTUS does nothing about qualified immunity.
The recent Supreme Court decision allowing a truck stop in North Dakota to challenge a decade-old regulation on debit card swipe fees underscores a crucial aspect of our democratic system: the separation of powers. This principle dictates that while federal agencies are responsible for implementing and enforcing laws, it is Congress that must pass these laws. The decision reflects a necessary check on the growing influence of federal agencies, reinforcing the idea that they should not operate without accountability or beyond the scope intended by Congress.
Congress has, unfortunately, often failed to act decisively or promptly on many pressing issues, leaving federal agencies to fill the gaps with regulations. This regulatory overreach can sometimes lead to unintended consequences that affect businesses and individuals long after the regulations are enacted. By affirming the right to challenge these regulations even after a significant period, the Supreme Court is emphasizing that no one should be denied their day in court simply because they were not affected by a regulation within the initial six-year window.
Chief Justice John Roberts aptly captured this dilemma, noting that individuals or entities harmed by government actions deserve the opportunity to seek redress. The legal principle that everyone is entitled to their day in court must be upheld to ensure fairness and justice, regardless of when the harm occurs. This decision also signals a shift towards reining in the power of federal agencies, as seen in the recent rulings against the Securities and Exchange Commission and the overturning of the 1984 Chevron decision.
The responsibility now falls on Congress to step up and fulfill its legislative duties more effectively. It must create clear, precise laws that limit the need for broad regulatory interpretation and reduce the potential for overreach by federal agencies. Only then can we ensure a balanced system where regulations are both fair and accountable, and where the separation of powers is respected as intended by the framers of our Constitution.
+1
What bunk. Congress did the very thing you claimed they should do, they passed a law that set how long you could appeal regulations.
And Congress, if they wished, could de-fund each of these agencies every year.
So now, every regulation under the sun can be appealed by the corporate owners of this Court. And some of you think that’s a good thing, rolling America back to the era where people had zero power and corporations had it all? Have any of you studied history?
++1
I look forward to the magical day Congress can write laws with such specificity that they can’t be parsed to death by lawyers getting paid to perform that function, or simply ignored by a hyperpartisan court bribed to ignore them.
Poor sky screamers are having a tough week
Mike, you have any kids or grandkids you’d rather not see killed in a meaningless civil war?