Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf
Page Number: 8

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

adopted Regulation II or even during the D. C. Circuit liti-
gation.  But after opening its doors, it too became frustrated
by  interchange  fees,  and  in  2021,  joined  a  suit  brought 
against the Board under the Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA).  The complaint alleges that Regulation II is unlawful 
because it allows payment networks to charge higher fees
than the statute permits.  See 5 U. S. C. §§706(2)(A), (C).

The  District  Court  dismissed  the  suit  as  barred  by  28
U. S. C. §2401(a), the applicable statute of limitations, 2022
WL 909317, *7–*9 (ND, Mar. 11, 2022), and the Eighth Cir-
cuit affirmed, North Dakota Retail Assn. v. Board of Gover-
nors of FRS, 55 F. 4th 634 (2022).  Following other Circuits,
it distinguished between “facial” challenges to a rule (like
Corner Post’s challenge to Regulation II) and challenges to
a rule “as-applied” to a particular party.  Id., at 640–641. 
The Eighth Circuit held that “when plaintiffs bring a facial
challenge  to  a  final  agency  action,  the  right  of  action  ac-
crues, and the limitations period begins to run, upon publi-
cation  of  the  regulation.” 
Id.,  at  641.  On  this  view, 
§2401(a)’s  6-year  limitations  period  began  in  2011,  when
the Board published Regulation II, and expired in 2017, be-
fore Corner Post swiped its first debit card.  See id., at 643. 
Corner Post’s suit was therefore too late. 

The Eighth Circuit’s decision deepened a circuit split over 
when §2401(a)’s statute of limitations begins to run for APA 
suits challenging agency action.  At least six Circuits now 
hold that the limitations period for “facial” APA challenges
begins  on  the  date  of  final  agency  action—e.g.,  when  the 
rule was promulgated—regardless of when the plaintiff was 
injured.  See,  e.g.,  id.,  at  641;  Wind  River  Min.  Corp.  v. 
United  States,  946  F. 2d  710,  715  (CA9  1991);  Dunn-
McCampbell Royalty Interest, Inc. v. National Park Serv., 
112 F. 3d 1283, 1287 (CA5 1997); Harris v. FAA, 353 F. 3d 
1006,  1009–1010  (CADC  2004);  Hire  Order  Ltd.  v. 
Marianos, 698 F. 3d 168, 170 (CA4 2012); Odyssey Logistics 
& Tech. Corp. v. Iancu, 959 F. 3d 1104, 1111–1112 (CA Fed.