Corner Post and the Problem of Regulatory Finality

In the season finale, Gwen and Marc turn to Corner Post v. Board of Governors, a decision that reshapes when federal regulations can be challenged—and potentially destabilizes decades of settled law. They open with a property-law analogy, explaining the doctrine of “coming to the nuisance” and why legal systems protect settled expectations and reliance.They then explain how statutes of limitations have traditionally functioned in administrative law: challenges to regulations had to be brought within six years of issuance. Corner Post upends that understanding by tying accrual to standing, allowing newly formed entities to challenge long-standing regulations as if they were brand new.Walking through the facts of the case—a challenge to Federal Reserve interchange-fee rules by a company formed years after the regulation—the episode explains why the Court’s reasoning feels intuitive in individual litigation but becomes dangerous when applied to nationwide regulatory schemes. Gwen and Marc show how this eliminates finality, enables strategic plaintiff creation, and supercharges forum shopping.The episode then examines how Corner Post interacts with Loper Bright and the Major Questions Doctrine, creating a multiplier effect: less deference, stricter substantive limits, and perpetual vulnerability to challenge. The result, they argue, is a regulatory system where no rule is ever truly settled.The season closes by reflecting on what these cases mean collectively for the administrative state—and why understanding them is essential for anyone trying to make sense of modern governance.What They Cover in This EpisodeHow statutes of limitations normally workAccrual, standing, and regulatory finalityThe facts and holding of Corner Post“Coming to the regulatory nuisance”Reliance interests and settled expectationsStrategic plaintiff creation and forum shoppingCircuit fragmentation and regulatory chaosHow Corner Post compounds Loper Bright