Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> JURIST - The Paper Chase

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Legal News

: JURIST - The Paper Chase

National Bank Act does not prevent state enforcement: Supreme Court

By Bernard Hibbitts (editor) and University of Pittsburgh School of Law students.

ADVERTISEMENTS

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Monday ruled 5-4 in Cuomo v. Clearing House Association that the National Bank Act (NBA) and 12 CFR § 7.4000 do not prevent a state from enforcing fair lending laws against national banks. The Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC) had interpreted § 484(a) defining "visitorial powers" to preempt state enforcement of state laws against national banks, and brought suit to prevent the New York Attorney General from seeking the voluntary release of bank information under threat of subpoena. Finding that visitorial powers "include any form of administrative oversight that allows a sovereign to inspect books and records on demand," the Court found that when: a state attorney general brings suit to enforce state law against a national bank, he is not acting in the role of sovereign-as-supervisor, but rather in the role of sovereign-as-law-enforcer. Such a lawsuit is not an exercise of "visitorial powers" and thus the Comptroller erred by extending the definition of "visitorial powers" to include "prosecuting enforcement actions" in state courts.The Court also found that the executive authority to issue subpoenas granted to the Attorney General by New York Executive Law § 63 was not an enforcement power "vested in the courts of justice" as required by the NBA, and therefore upheld part of a lower court injunction preventing the issuance of executive subpoenas, while allowing the commencement of judicial proceedings.The Clearing House Association, a banking trade group, and the OCC brought suit after then-New York attorney general Elliot Spitzer sent "letters of inquiry" "in lieu of subpoenas" to banks operating in New York. Spitzer was seeking to determine if mortgage data released by the Federal Reserve in 2005, showing a that minority borrowers had disproportionately high percentage of high-interest home mortgage loans, showed that banks had violated state consumer protection and anti-discrimination laws.

Full post as published by JURIST - The Paper Chase on June 29, 2009 (boomark / email).