In a pivotal Supreme Court session on February 20, 2024, the justices heard arguments in the case of Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, FRS, which centers on the legality of debit card fees incurred by Corner Post since its inception in 2018. The company contends that these fees are unlawful and argues that its right to challenge them began when it first paid a fee, not in 2011 as claimed by the government.

The crux of Corner Post's argument hinges on the interpretation of the statute of limitations. The company asserts that under Section 2401, the limitations period should start when a plaintiff is first harmed by a regulation. This interpretation aligns with established legal principles, which dictate that a claim accrues only when the plaintiff can sue. Corner Post's legal team emphasized that the government's position would create an unfair precedent, effectively transforming the statute into a repose-based framework, which Congress has not intended for Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims.

The government, on the other hand, argues that allowing Corner Post to challenge older rules could disrupt reliance interests, suggesting that it would open the floodgates for challenges to long-standing regulations. However, Corner Post's representatives countered that such challenges are already permissible in an "as applied" context without any time limits.

The justices engaged in discussions about the nature of accrual cases, highlighting that it is common for the date of injury and the date of unlawful conduct to differ. This case could set a significant precedent regarding how and when businesses can challenge regulatory fees, with implications for future litigation and regulatory practices.

As the court deliberates, the outcome of this case may reshape the landscape for businesses navigating regulatory fees and their rights to contest them, reinforcing the importance of clear legislative intent in the application of the law.