In an action claiming that certain state fair-lending laws were preempted by the National Bank Act (NBA) and accompanying regulations, an injunction in favor of Plaintiffs is affirmed in part, where the state’s threatened issuance of executive subpoenas was an improper exercise of “supervisory power”. However, the judgment is reversed in part where a federal regulation purporting to pre-empt state law enforcement is not a reasonable interpretation of the NBA.
Read Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass’n., L.L.C., No. 08-453
Appellate Information
Argued April 28, 2009
Decided June 29, 2009
Judges
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
Justice Thomas, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Counsel
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Barbara D. Underwood, Counsel of Record, Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY
Attorneys for Respondents:
Seth P. Waxman, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC
Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC
Robinson B. Lacy, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, 125 Broad Street, New York, NY
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
