Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf
Page Number: 29

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

1 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–1008 
_________________ 

CORNER POST, INC., PETITIONER v. BOARD 
OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL  
RESERVE SYSTEM 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT 

[July 1, 2024]

 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring. 
I  agree  with  the  Court  that  a  claim  under  the 
Administrative Procedure Act accrues when the plaintiff is 
injured by the challenged agency rule.  I also agree with the
Court  that  today’s  decision  vindicates  the  APA’s  “ ‘basic 
presumption’ that anyone injured by agency action should 
have access to judicial review.”  Ante, at 21 (quoting Abbott 
Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U. S. 136, 140 (1967)). 

I  write  separately  to  explain  a  crucial  additional  point: 
Corner Post can obtain relief in this case only because the 
APA authorizes vacatur of agency rules.

Corner Post challenged an agency rule that regulates the
fees that banks may charge.  But Corner Post is not a bank 
regulated  by  the  rule.  Rather,  it  is  a  business  that  must 
pay the fees charged by the banks who are regulated by the
rule.  Corner  Post  complains  that  the  agency  rule  allows
banks to charge fees that are unreasonably high. 

Corner Post’s suit is a typical APA suit.  An unregulated 
plaintiff such as Corner Post often will sue under the APA
to  challenge  an  allegedly  unlawful  agency  rule  that
regulates  others  but  also  has  adverse  downstream  effects 
on the plaintiff.  In those cases, an injunction barring the
agency from enforcing the rule against the plaintiff would 
not help the plaintiff, because the plaintiff is not regulated