SCOTUS decides APA SOL accrues from date of injury, not action; libs irate
| DMRT1 knockout lentiviral transfer plasmid | 07/02/24 | | "''"'"'""'"" | 07/02/24 | | A lawyer (or lower) | 07/02/24 | | LathamTouchedMe | 07/02/24 | | DMRT1 knockout lentiviral transfer plasmid | 07/02/24 | | .,.,.,.,.,.,............,,.,. | 07/02/24 | | sex with females makes you weak and pliable | 07/02/24 | | .,.,.,.,.,.,............,,.,. | 07/02/24 | | LathamTouchedMe | 07/02/24 | | .,.,.,.,.,.,............,,.,. | 07/02/24 | | LathamTouchedMe | 07/02/24 | | symbolism | 07/02/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 2nd, 2024 3:58 PM Author: DMRT1 knockout lentiviral transfer plasmid
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1008_1b82.pdf
JUSTICE JACKSON, with whom JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting.
More than half a century ago, this Court highlighted the long-recognized “hazards inherent in attempting to define for all purposes when a ‘cause of action’ first ‘accrues.’” Crown Coat Front Co. v. United States, 386 U. S. 503, 517 (1967). Today, the majority throws that caution to the wind and engages in the same kind of misguided reasoning about statutory limitations periods that we have previously admonished.
The flawed reasoning and far-reaching results of the Court’s ruling in this case are staggering. First, the reasoning. The text and context of the relevant statutory provisions plainly reveal that, for facial challenges to agency regulations, the 6-year limitations period in 28 U. S. C. §2401(a) starts running when the rule is published. The Court says otherwise today, holding that the broad statutory term “accrues” requires us to conclude that the limitations period for Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims runs from the time of a plaintiff ’s injury. Never mind that this Court’s precedents tell us that the meaning of “accrues” is context specific. Never mind that, in the administrativelaw context, limitations statutes uniformly run from the moment of agency action. Never mind that a plaintiff ’s injury is utterly irrelevant to a facial APA claim. According to the Court, we must ignore all of this because, for other kinds of claims, accrual begins at the time of a plaintiff ’s injury.
Next, the results. The Court’s baseless conclusion means that there is effectively no longer any limitations period for lawsuits that challenge agency regulations on their face. Allowing every new commercial entity to bring fresh facial challenges to long-existing regulations is profoundly destabilizing for both Government and businesses. It also allows well-heeled litigants to game the system by creating new entities or finding new plaintiffs whenever they blow past the statutory deadline. The majority refuses to accept the straightforward, commonsense, and singularly plausible reading of the limitations statute that Congress wrote. In doing so, the Court wreaks havoc on Government agencies, businesses, and society at large. I respectfully dissent.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5549247&forum_id=2Reputation#47802746) |
Date: July 2nd, 2024 4:00 PM Author: "''"'"'""'""
Basically the business community wanted this and they bought and paid for it. Those $100,000.00 fishing trips weren’t for nothing.
Ask the same majority when a personal injury plaintiff’s claim accrues and they’ll state the exact opposite.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5549247&forum_id=2Reputation#47802757) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2024 4:07 PM
Author: .,.,.,.,.,.,............,,.,. ( )
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5549247&forum_id=2Reputation#47802799) |
Date: July 2nd, 2024 4:07 PM
Author: .,.,.,.,.,.,............,,.,. ( )
How is this even a dispute? So Corporation X was supposed to magically know it would be implicated in a regulation one day and challenge it in advance? Whereupon the agency would then argue they didn't have standing? This decision is obviously correct and it's shocking it had go all the way to SCOTUS to get there
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5549247&forum_id=2Reputation#47802804) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2024 4:15 PM
Author: .,.,.,.,.,.,............,,.,. ( )
So if an agency made an illegal regulation and you didn't challenge it-- possibly because you weren't even in business yet-- you're just fucked? Doesn't seem great that agencies get a free pass for lawlesness. If some AI regulations are written now by a NY DEI hire, we're just stuck with them for eternity if nobody challenges them?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5549247&forum_id=2Reputation#47802836) |
|
|