{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca4-25-1986-2026-06-24", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca4-25-1986-2026-06-24)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-14", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:88b5b2", "proof": "sha256:583f7ed9fc450bcd46bacdd04b69771994b24d2f21c7658d38bbb72534c0f096", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca4-25-1986-2026-06-24", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "PUBLISHED", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "No. 25-1986", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "HENRY MCMASTER, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of South", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "Carolina; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR LICENSING AND", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "REGULATION,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs - Appellants,", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; KEITH E. SONDERLING, in his", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "official capacity as Acting Secretary of Labor; OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY &", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "HEALTH ADMINISTRATION; DAVID KEELING, in his official capacity as", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health,", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "Defendants - Appellees.", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "Columbia. Sherri A. Lydon, District Judge. (3:23-cv-01038-SAL)", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "Argued: May 5, 2026 Decided: June 24, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Niemeyer", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "and Judge Agee joined.", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "ARGUED: William Grayson Lambert, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Kain Day, UNITED STATES", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF:", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 25-1986 Doc: 37 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 1 of 9", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "Erica Wells Shedd, Deputy Legal Counsel, Tyra S. McBride, Deputy Legal Counsel,", "paragraph_id": "para_26", "court_paragraph": 2 }, { "text": "OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "Appellant Henry Dargan McMaster. Robert E. Horner, SOUTH CAROLINA", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING & REGULATION, Columbia, South", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "Carolina, for Appellant South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing & Regulation.", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Michael S. Raab, Civil Division, UNITED", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Jonathan Berry, Solicitor of", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "Labor, Edmund C. Baird, Associate Solicitor for Occupational Safety and Health,", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "Louise M. Betts, Linda Wiles, Office of the Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Bryan P. Stirling, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 25-1986 Doc: 37 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 2 of 9", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "GREGORY, Circuit Judge:", "paragraph_id": "para_39", "court_paragraph": 3 }, { "text": "When the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) promulgated", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "an interim final rule in July 2016, it put South Carolina out of compliance with federal", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "workplace safety regulations. In March 2023, South Carolina brought this suit, in part", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "challenging the 2016 rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The APA", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "challenge was brought outside of the six-year statute of limitations, and the district court", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "correctly dismissed those claims as untimely.", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "I.", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires the United States Department of", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "Labor to administer occupational health and safety standards, but it allows states to", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "establish their own plans subject to OSHA approval. 29 U.S.C. § 667. The state plans", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "must meet certain requirements, including that the health and safety standards and", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "enforcement mechanisms be “at least as effective” as OSHA’s. Id. § 667(c)(2). For each", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "state, OSHA issues a yearly Federal Annual Monitoring Evaluation (“FAME”), which", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "analyzes the performance of each state plan. OSHA, U.S. Dep’t of Lab., State Plan", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "Policies and Procedures Manual 72 (May 6, 2020). In each FAME, OSHA flags any “new", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "issues that occurred during the evaluation period” and issues formal “findings” that", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "“question the final approval status of a State Plan.” Id. at 74, G-4. If OSHA determines", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "that a state plan is not compliant with federal law or regulations, OSHA may revoke", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "authority for the plan or withdraw approval. 29 U.S.C. § 667(f); 29 C.F.R. §§ 1902.47-", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "1902.53; 29 C.F.R. § 1955.4(a).", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 25-1986 Doc: 37 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 3 of 9", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "4", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "In July 2016, OSHA promulgated an interim final rule pursuant to a 2015 statute", "paragraph_id": "para_62", "court_paragraph": 4 }, { "text": "requiring the agency to make annual adjustments to its monetary penalties, to keep up with", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "inflation. 81 Fed. Reg. 43430 (July 1, 2016) (effective August 1, 2016); 82 Fed. Reg. 5373", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "(Jan. 18, 2017) (final rule). In its interim final rule, OSHA asserted that existing state plans", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "would have to increase their maximum and minimum penalty amounts to keep pace with", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "OSHA’s. 81 Fed. Reg. 43430, 43446 (July 1, 2016); see also 82 Fed. Reg. 5373, 5375", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "(Jan. 18, 2017) (declaring OSHA’s “long-standing position” that state monetary penalties", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "must be at least as high as OSHA’s monetary penalties). Under the rule, state plans are", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "noncompliant and risk revocation if their monetary penalties are lower than OSHA’s.", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "South Carolina has administered and enforced its own health and safety standards", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "for decades. See 37 Fed. Reg. 25,932 (Dec. 6, 1972) (initial approval); 52 Fed. Reg. 48,103", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "(Dec. 18, 1987) (final approval). However, when OSHA raised its monetary penalties in", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "2016, South Carolina did not match the increase, placing South Carolina out of compliance", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "with the new OSHA regulations. The first post-rule FAME indicated that South Carolina", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "had not yet increased its maximum penalties. OSHA, U.S. Dep’t of Lab., South Carolina", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "FY 2017 Comprehensive FAME Report 17. The subsequent three years identified South", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "Carolina’s civil penalty rates as a “[n]ew [i]ssue[],” but did not make a formal finding of", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "noncompliance. See OSHA, U.S. Dep’t of Lab., South Carolina FY 2018 Follow-Up", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "FAME Report 6; OSHA, U.S. Dep’t of Lab., South Carolina FY 2019 Comprehensive", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "FAME Report 5; OSHA, U.S. Dep’t of Lab., South Carolina FY 2020 Follow-Up FAME", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "Report 5. Nor did OSHA issue formal findings of noncompliance for other state plans that", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 25-1986 Doc: 37 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 4 of 9", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "5", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "had failed to raise monetary penalties. See, e.g., OSHA, U.S. Dep’t of Lab., North Carolina", "paragraph_id": "para_85", "court_paragraph": 5 }, { "text": "FY 2018 Follow-Up FAME Report 6.", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "In 2022, OSHA issued a formal “finding” that South Carolina had failed to comply", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "with federal regulations. OSHA, U.S. Dep’t of Lab., South Carolina FY 2021", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "Comprehensive FAME Report 18. It recommended that South Carolina “work with [its]", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "state authorities to complete the legislative changes” necessary to become compliant. Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "at 18. At approximately the same time, OSHA promulgated its 2022 inflation adjustment.", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "87 Fed. Reg. 2328 (Jan. 14, 2022). Also in 2022, OSHA published notice to begin", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "revocation of Arizona’s state plan, in part citing Arizona’s failure to increase its monetary", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "penalties. 87 Fed. Reg. 23783, 23786-87 (Apr. 21, 2022).", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "Henry McMaster, Governor of South Carolina, and the South Carolina Department", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (“Plaintiffs”) brought their first suit in 2022. In that first", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "suit, Plaintiffs challenged only OSHA’s 2022 inflation adjustment, not its 2016 rule. Since", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "the 2022 adjustment merely implemented the 2016 rule, the district court held that the 2022", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "adjustment was not a final agency action and therefore not reviewable under the APA.", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs filed the complaint in this case on March 14, 2023, in part challenging", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "OSHA’s 2016 interim final rule. The United States Department of Labor and OSHA", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that two of the eight counts—the APA claims—", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "were untimely because they were brought outside the APA’s six-year statute of limitations.", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs countered that they had not suffered an injury until OSHA issued its finding of", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "noncompliance in 2022, and therefore the claim was timely. The district court determined", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "that any injury Plaintiffs suffered occurred in 2016, and therefore Plaintiffs a) still face no", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 25-1986 Doc: 37 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 5 of 9", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "6", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "credible threat, and therefore have no standing to sue; or b) were injured in 2016, and their", "paragraph_id": "para_109", "court_paragraph": 6 }, { "text": "claims are now untimely. McMaster v. Dep’t of Lab., No. 3:23-cv-01038 (D.S.C. July 1,", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "2025). Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the two APA counts. This Court has jurisdiction", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "II.", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "The APA entitles persons “suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute”", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "to “judicial review thereof.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. To bring a claim under this section, a litigant", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "must show, “at the outset of the case, that he is injured in fact by agency action.” Director,", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "Co., 514 U.S. 122, 127 (1995).", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "The relevant statute of limitations provides that “every civil action commenced", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "against the United States shall be barred unless the complaint is filed within six years after", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "the right of action first accrues.” 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). Naturally, Plaintiffs face an uphill", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "task in claiming that they may bring a facial challenge to a rule promulgated seven years", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "prior to their suit.", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "The Supreme Court recently interpreted this statute of limitations in Corner Post,", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "Inc. v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System, 603 U.S. 799 (2024). The Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "Court explained that a right of action “‘accrues’ when the plaintiff has a complete and", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "present cause of action—i.e., when she has the right to file suit and obtain relief.” Id. at", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "809. Therefore, an organization incorporated in 2017 was not time-barred from a 2021", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 25-1986 Doc: 37 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 6 of 9", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "7", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "challenge to an agency rule, even though the rule had been promulgated in 2010, because", "paragraph_id": "para_132", "court_paragraph": 7 }, { "text": "the new organization was not injured until it was founded. See id. at 813.", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "Plaintiffs here claim to be in a similar position to the Corner Post plaintiff; they", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "allege that OSHA’s pattern of “sustained nonenforcement” caused their injury to", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "“disappear,” such that they would not have had standing to challenge OSHA’s 2016 rule.", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "Opening Br. at 15-19. They argue that they were not truly aggrieved by agency action until", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "OSHA presented a “credible threat” of enforcement in 2022. See Bryant v. Woodall, 1", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "F.4th 280, 289 (4th Cir. 2021). And if the injury giving rise to this suit did not emerge", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "until 2022, Plaintiffs are within the statute of limitations.1", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "These arguments hold no water. Under the plain text of the statute of limitations, an", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "APA claim is barred “unless the complaint is filed within six years after the right of action", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "first accrues.” 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (emphasis added). The interpretation of this provision", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "is “straightforward.” Corner Post, Inc. v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 603 U.S. 799,", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "804 (2024). “A claim accrues when the plaintiff has the right to assert it in court—and in", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "the case of the APA, that is when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "Though they were inconsistent on this point throughout their briefing, Plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "acknowledged at oral argument that they were injured, and could have brought a claim,", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "when OSHA first promulgated the rule in 2016.2 Oral Arg. Tr. 9:16-9:20 (“The first", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "1 Plaintiffs expressly disclaim any equitable tolling argument based on their 2022", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "suit, which was dismissed.", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "2 Plaintiffs suggest that if we reject their theory of second injury, the clock should", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "not start in July 2016, with the publication of the interim final rule, but instead in January", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "(Continued)", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 25-1986 Doc: 37 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 7 of 9", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "8", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "credible threat that arose was from the rule’s publication.”). This tracks with longstanding", "paragraph_id": "para_157", "court_paragraph": 8 }, { "text": "caselaw that permits pre-enforcement review of agency action, see Abbott Labs. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 140 (1967), and is fatal to Plaintiffs’ convoluted theory invoking", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "a second injury.", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "Even if the threat of OSHA enforcement expired, that would not erase the reality", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "that the cause of action had first accrued in 2016. But it is unclear why the threat would", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "have expired, a mere six years after the rule was promulgated. See Poe v. Ullman, 367", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "U.S. 497, 501–02 (1961) (no immediate threat when Connecticut law had been enforced", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "once in eighty-two years); Doe v. Duling, 782 F.2d 1202, 1204–07 (no immediate threat", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "from criminal law of which violations were common but there had been no convictions in", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "the prior hundred years); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188 (1973) (credible threat exists", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "from laws that are “recent and not moribund”). Since Plaintiffs could have brought suit on", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "July 1, 2016 challenging the interim final rule, they were required to bring their claims by", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "July 1, 2022. See Hire Order Ltd. v. Marianos, 698 F.3d 168, 170 (4th Cir. 2012)", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "(explaining that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the agency publishes the", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "regulation, not the date the regulation becomes effective), abrogated on other grounds,", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "Corner Post, 603 U.S. at 806–07, 813.", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "Ruling against Plaintiffs here does not prevent them from raising their substantive", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "claims as a defense against any enforcement action. Regulated parties “may always assail", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "a regulation as exceeding the agency’s statutory authority in enforcement proceedings", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "2017, when the final rule was published. For the purposes of this case, it makes no", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "difference, because the instant case was brought more than six years after both dates.", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 25-1986 Doc: 37 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 8 of 9", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "9", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "against them.” Corner Post, 603 U.S. at 823 (quoting Herr v. U.S. Forest Service, 803", "paragraph_id": "para_181", "court_paragraph": 9 }, { "text": "F.3d 809, 821–22 (6th Cir. 2015)). Plaintiffs are not doing that here—they wish to bring a", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "pre-enforcement, facial challenge to the 2016 rule on the grounds that they believe", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "enforcement is now imminent. But the 2022 finding is not the initiation of an enforcement", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "proceeding. It is merely the basis upon which an enforcement proceeding could be", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "initiated. If that enforcement proceeding occurs, Plaintiffs may argue in that context that", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "OSHA has exceeded its authority with the 2016 rule, but under the terms of 28 U.S.C.", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "§ 2401(a), they have forfeited their chance to bring a pre-enforcement challenge.", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "III.", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "AFFIRMED.", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "USCA4 Appeal: 25-1986 Doc: 37 Filed: 06/24/2026 Pg: 9 of 9", "paragraph_id": "para_192" } ], "word_count": 2202, "cites": [ "514 U.S. 122", "603 U.S. 799", "387 U.S. 136", "367\nU.S. 497", "410 U.S. 179", "1\nF.4th 280", "782 F.2d 1202", "698 F.3d 168", "803\nF.3d 809" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "1098872be22c725835b076ef6dc19b96146ea6f9b15d50177198d9cadfc8fe37", "source_url": "https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca4-25-01986/pdf/USCOURTS-ca4-25-01986-0.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-03T03:33:30.803+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca4-25-1986-2026-06-24", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca4-25-1986-2026-06-24", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca4-25-1986-2026-06-24", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca4-25-1986-2026-06-24" }, "hash": "sha256:583f7ed9fc450bcd46bacdd04b69771994b24d2f21c7658d38bbb72534c0f096", "version": "legal-2026-10-14", "expires": "2026-10-16T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-14+legal-2026-10-14+2026-10-14T19:52:40", "content_hash": "sha256:583f7ed9fc450bcd46bacdd04b69771994b24d2f21c7658d38bbb72534c0f096", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-15T06:14:37.396Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca4-25-1986-2026-06-24", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca4-25-1986-2026-06-24" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca4-25-1986-2026-06-24" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca4-25-1986-2026-06-24" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }