Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf
Page Number: 50.0

4 

CORNER POST, INC. v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS, FRS 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

2019 data, the amended complaint alleged the same facts
and sought the same relief as the original pleading.  It also 
included the exact same legal claims—verbatim.  The only
material change to the amended complaint was the addition
of Corner Post. 

Thus, even before I analyze the statute of limitations ar-
guments, one can see that this case is the poster child for 
the  type  of  manipulation  that  the  majority  now  invites—
new groups being brought in (or created) just to do an end 
run  around  the  statute  of  limitations.1   To  repeat:  The
claims in Corner Post’s lawsuit were not new or in any way 
distinct  (even  in  wording)  from  the  pre-existing  and  un-
timely  claims  of  the  trade  organizations  that  had  been 
around for decades. 

This  time,  however,  when  the  Government  renewed  its 
motion  to  dismiss,  the  plaintiffs  made  the  case  all  about 
Corner  Post.  The  plaintiffs  argued  that,  because  Corner
Post had not yet formed as a company when the Board is-
sued Regulation II, it simply could not be subjected to a 6-
year limitations period that ran from when the challenged 
regulation issued back in 2011.  (One wonders how a com-
pany that formed against the backdrop of a long-settled rule 
could possibly be entitled to complain, or claim injury, re-
lated  to  the  regulatory  environment  in  which  it  willingly
entered—but I digress.)  Rather than accepting that the un-
timely challenge remained so, Corner Post demanded a per-
sonalized,  plaintiff-specific  limitations  rule,  giving  an  en-
tity  six  years  from  when  it  was  first  affected  by  a 
—————— 

1 If this case illustrates one type of gamesmanship, one does not need
to think hard to imagine other examples.  A cash-only business that an-
nounces its intent to accept debit cards and thereby claiming injury from
the debit-card rule.  New owners that buy out a shop, insisting that they
too are entitled to challenge the debit-card rule based on their status as
new entrants into the marketplace.  It is telling that, even as the major-
ity says that the moment of the plaintiff ’s injury marks the start of the 
limitations period for facial APA challenges, the majority fails to describe
precisely when that injury occurs in this context.