Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf
Page Number: 70.0

24 

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

JACKSON, J., dissenting 

vested them with authority to set the ground rules for the 
individuals and entities that participate in the our economy
and our society.  It is utterly inconceivable that §2401(a)’s 
statute of limitations was meant to permit fresh attacks on
settled regulations from all new comers forever.  Yet, that 
is what the majority holds today.

But Congress still has a chance to address this absurdity 
and  forestall  the  coming  chaos.  It  can  opt  to  correct  this 
Court’s mistake by clarifying that the statutes it enacts are 
designed to facilitate the functioning of agencies, not to hob-
ble them.  In particular, Congress can amend §2401(a), or 
enact  a  specific  review  provision  for  APA  claims,  to  state
explicitly what any such rule must mean if it is to operate
as  a  limitations  period  in  this  context:  Regulated  entities
have six years from the date of the agency action to bring a 
lawsuit  seeking  to  have  it  changed  or  invalidated;  after 
that, facial challenges must end.  By doing this, Congress 
can make clear that lawsuits bringing facial claims against 
agencies  are  not  personal  attack  vehicles  for  new  entities 
created just for that purpose. So, while the Court has made 
a mess of this pivotal statute, and the consequences are pro-
found, “the ball is in Congress’ court.”  Ledbetter v. Good-
year  Tire  &  Rubber  Co.,  550  U. S.  618,  661  (2007)  (Gins-
burg, J., dissenting).