Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf
Page Number: 63.0

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

17 

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

actions, the claim itself remains focused on the agency.  See 
Crown Coat, 386 U. S., at 513 (“The focus of the court action
is the validity of the administrative decision”). 

The way that courts review agency actions also reinforces
this  basic  observation.  Courts  do  not  look  at  what  hap-
pened to the plaintiff or what happened after the rulemak-
ing—they look only at the rule and the rulemaking process
itself.  See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, 95 (1943). 
“[T]he focal point for judicial review should be the adminis-
trative  record  already  in  existence,  not  some  new  record
made initially in the reviewing court.”  Camp v. Pitts, 411 
U. S. 138, 142 (1973) (per curiam).  Anything that happened 
after the rule’s publication (including, perhaps, some injury 
to a regulated party) does not matter to an APA claim. So, 
the available claims, causes of action, and evidence are the 
same regardless of who brings the challenge or when they
bring it.

Again, the complaint in this case proves the point.  Before 
Corner Post was added as a plaintiff, the complaint alleged 
that  (1)  Regulation  II  is  contrary  to  law  and  exceeds  the 
Board’s  statutory  authority,  and  (2)  Regulation  II  is arbi-
trary and capricious.  See Complaint in North Dakota Retail 
Assn.  v.  Board  of  Governors  of  FRS,  No.  1:21–cv–00095 
(D ND),  ECF  Doc.  1,  pp.  32–36.    After  Corner  Post  was 
added as a plaintiff, the complaint made exactly those same 
two legal claims.  See App. to Pet. for Cert. 79–84.  Before 
Corner Post was added, the contrary-to-law claim said that 
the Board considered impermissible costs and capped inter-
change fees in a way that was not proportional to the spe-
cific costs of each transaction.  See ECF Doc. 1, at 32–34. 
After Corner Post was added, the contrary-to-law claim said
the exact same thing.  See App. to Pet. for Cert. 79–81.  Be-

—————— 
act in a manner that was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, 
or otherwise not in accordance with law,” §706(2).