Corporate Accountability

RELEASE: At Oral Argument, Justices Recognize Profound Effect of Banking Case on State Efforts to Protect Consumers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court this morning in Cantero v. Bank of America, a case in which the Court is considering whether a state law protecting New York homeowners is preempted by the federal National Banking Act, Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) Appellate Counsel Smita Ghosh issued the following reaction:

For nearly five decades, New York state law has protected homeowning New Yorkers by requiring mortgage lenders to share the profits earned by interest-generating mortgage escrow accounts. Today Bank of America asked the Supreme Court to exempt it from that requirement, arguing that this state law is preempted by the National Banking Act.

As CAC’s amicus brief in this case made clear, this argument is at odds with history, as well as the Supreme Court’s own precedent. Significantly, states have regulated the banks within their borders—including national banks—since the passage of the National Banking Act during the Civil War. Indeed, the so-called dual banking system, in which states and the federal government each participate in bank chartering and regulating, has been seen as promoting national values of competition, federalism, and freedom of choice. A ruling on behalf of Bank of America would run counter to this long history.

A ruling on behalf of Bank of America would also run counter to the statutory text at issue. That text instructs that state laws should only be preempted in their application to national banks when they “significantly interfere” with banks’ performance of public functions. While Bank of America’s counsel pushed back on that standard and sought a presumption that certain laws are preempted, that argument runs headlong into the text of the statute, as Justices Gorsuch and Jackson told the Bank’s lawyer today.

Bank of America’s argument, if accepted, would undermine state efforts to protect homeowners and consumers within their borders. Fortunately, neither law nor history is on Bank of America’s side.

##

Resources:

Case page in Cantero v. Bank of America: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/cantero-v-bank-of-america/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

##

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
September 9, 2025

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS—Fifth Circuit rejects petition challenging OCC authority to enforce national banking rules

Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw
The court distinguished the national banking regulatory regime from the SEC’s antifraud provision in Jarkesy and the...
Corporate Accountability
July 11, 2025

This Group’s Record in Front of the Roberts Court Is Mind-Boggling

Slate
In a provocative dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently called out her colleagues on the Supreme Court...
By: Ana Builes, Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2025

Moneyed Interests Still Prevail at the Supreme Court (2024-2025 Term)

The Court Continues to Favor Corporations over Workers, Consumers, and the Environment.
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Ana Builes
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services

In Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considered whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional...
Corporate Accountability
January 28, 2025

Federal Deposit Insurance as Jarkesy Waiver

Yale Journal on Regulation
An argument lurking just beneath the surface in a pending Fifth Circuit case could stem...
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Boehringer Ingelheim v. Department of Health and Human Services

In Boehringer Ingelheim v. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional taking...