Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

20 

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

Opinion of the Court 

quent precedent.  Our limitations cases from the last sev-
eral decades have instead emphasized the strength of the
traditional,  plaintiff-centric  accrual  rule  and  demanded 
that departures be justified by the statutory “text of the lim-
itations period.”  Green, 578 U. S., at 554; see also, e.g., Gra-
ham  County,  545  U. S.,  at  418–419  (explaining  that  in 
Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U. S., at 267, the Court “declin[ed] to 
countenance the ‘odd result’ that a federal cause of action 
and statute of limitations arise at different times ‘absen[t] 
. . . any such indication in the statute’ ”); Bay Area Laundry, 
522 U. S., at 201. 

D 
Finally, the Board raises policy concerns.  It emphasizes
that agencies and regulated parties need the finality of a 6-
year cutoff.  After that point, facial challenges impose sig-
nificant burdens on agencies and courts.  Moreover, if they
are successful, such challenges upset the reliance interests
of the agencies and regulated parties that have long oper-
ated  under  existing  rules.  See  also  post,  at  18–24 
(JACKSON, J., dissenting). 

“[P]leas of administrative inconvenience . . . never ‘justify
departing  from  the  statute’s  clear  text.’ ”  Niz-Chavez  v. 
Garland, 593 U. S. 155, 169 (2021) (quoting Pereira v. Ses-
sions, 585 U. S 198, 217 (2018)).  Congress could have cho-
sen different language in §2401(a) or created a general stat-
ute of repose for agencies.  It did not. 

That is enough to dispatch the Board’s policy arguments,
but we add that its concerns are overstated.  Put aside facial 
challenges like Corner Post’s.  Regulated parties “may al-
ways assail a regulation as exceeding the agency’s statutory 
authority in enforcement proceedings against them” or “pe-
tition an agency to reconsider a longstanding rule and then
appeal the denial of that petition.”  Herr, 803 F. 3d, at 821– 
822.  So even on the Board’s preferred interpretation, “[a] 
federal  regulation  that  makes  it  six  years  without  being