Gold9472
04-18-2007, 06:29 PM
U.S. Supreme Court ruling limits state control over big banks
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/18/news/banks.php
By Linda Greenhouse
Published: April 18, 2007
WASHINGTON: The mortgage-lending subsidiaries of national banks are immune from state regulation, the Supreme Court has ruled in a decision that upheld a controversial regulation issued six years ago by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the chief federal bank regulator.
The attorneys general and bank regulators of all 50 states had urged the justices to find the regulation out of bounds, either as a misinterpretation of the National Bank Act or as a matter of constitutional federalism.
Consumer groups told the court that a decision upholding the federal agency's claimed power of pre-emption would displace state oversight at a time when the mortgage-lending industry urgently needed close supervision.
But by a vote of 5 to 3 on Tuesday, the court held in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the assertion of regulatory power by the comptroller of the currency was fully, if implicitly, authorized by federal law.
Referring to the National Bank Act by its initials, Ginsburg said, "Diverse and duplicative superintendence of national banks' engagement in the business of banking, we observed over a century ago, is precisely what the NBA was designed to prevent."
Ginsburg said it was appropriate to treat a bank's operating subsidiary as "subject to the same terms and conditions that govern the national bank itself." A national bank's authority to engage in mortgage lending through a subsidiary, a power the comptroller of the currency granted 41 years ago, "cannot be significantly impaired or impeded by state law," Ginsburg said.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a vigorous dissenting opinion that Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia also signed. Justice Clarence Thomas recused himself because his son and daughter-in-law both work for Wachovia Bank, which filed the lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court case.
The regulation that the court upheld pre-empts state regulation of any banking activity that a national bank conducts through an operating subsidiary. The decision therefore presumably applies beyond mortgage lending to other activities that subsidiaries commonly engage in, like the sale of annuities, automobile loans, small-business-lending and investment advice.
The comptroller of the currency has licensed nearly 500 national bank subsidiaries that deal directly with consumers in these and other types of retail activities.
Wachovia started the legal action in 2003 by bringing a federal lawsuit against Michigan's bank regulator, Linda Watters. The bank, which is based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and has no branches in Michigan, sought a declaration from the U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids that under the comptroller's recent regulation, its mortgage-lending subsidiary was no longer subject to state regulation.
Wachovia also brought a similar suit against Connecticut's Department of Banking. It won both cases, both at the district court and appeals court levels.
Other banks were bringing other cases at the same time. In all, four federal appeals courts have heard these cases, and all four, including the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in this case, ruled for the banks and against the states.
The court's consideration of the Michigan case, argued in November, coincided with heightened public interest in the mortgage industry as the falling real estate market and resulting foreclosures have raised questions about predatory lending practices.
Some analysts said Tuesday that the ruling could shape the congressional debate over the need for tougher regulation to protect consumers.
"Congress could use it as an opportunity to look at the pre-emption doctrine and put their own stamp on it," said Brian Gardner, a Washington policy analyst at Keefe Bruyette & Woods in New York. The risk, however, is that it could potentially complicate passage of a predatory lending bill, he said.
Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who heads the House Financial Services Committee, was presiding over a hearing on the foreclosure problem when the court announced its decision.
"We have to act on this," Frank said in an interview. "The court has eliminated a whole bunch of state consumer laws with nothing to put in their place."
National banks themselves have unquestionably been immune from state regulation. The issue arose only with the growing number of operating subsidiaries, authorized by the comptroller of the currency in 1966 to conduct various types of financial activities. States chartered and regulated these new institutions; Wachovia's mortgage lending subsidiary, originally called First Union Mortgage, is chartered by North Carolina.
The regulation issued by the comptroller of the currency in 2001 asserted that state laws could apply to national bank subsidiaries only to the extent that they could apply to the parent banks themselves, thus stripping states of authority they had been exercising for 35 years.
The legal question in the case was whether an agency regulation, which was not directly imposed by Congress and purporting to displace state regulatory authority, was entitled to the usual degree of deference that courts give to federal agencies.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/18/news/banks.php
By Linda Greenhouse
Published: April 18, 2007
WASHINGTON: The mortgage-lending subsidiaries of national banks are immune from state regulation, the Supreme Court has ruled in a decision that upheld a controversial regulation issued six years ago by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the chief federal bank regulator.
The attorneys general and bank regulators of all 50 states had urged the justices to find the regulation out of bounds, either as a misinterpretation of the National Bank Act or as a matter of constitutional federalism.
Consumer groups told the court that a decision upholding the federal agency's claimed power of pre-emption would displace state oversight at a time when the mortgage-lending industry urgently needed close supervision.
But by a vote of 5 to 3 on Tuesday, the court held in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the assertion of regulatory power by the comptroller of the currency was fully, if implicitly, authorized by federal law.
Referring to the National Bank Act by its initials, Ginsburg said, "Diverse and duplicative superintendence of national banks' engagement in the business of banking, we observed over a century ago, is precisely what the NBA was designed to prevent."
Ginsburg said it was appropriate to treat a bank's operating subsidiary as "subject to the same terms and conditions that govern the national bank itself." A national bank's authority to engage in mortgage lending through a subsidiary, a power the comptroller of the currency granted 41 years ago, "cannot be significantly impaired or impeded by state law," Ginsburg said.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a vigorous dissenting opinion that Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia also signed. Justice Clarence Thomas recused himself because his son and daughter-in-law both work for Wachovia Bank, which filed the lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court case.
The regulation that the court upheld pre-empts state regulation of any banking activity that a national bank conducts through an operating subsidiary. The decision therefore presumably applies beyond mortgage lending to other activities that subsidiaries commonly engage in, like the sale of annuities, automobile loans, small-business-lending and investment advice.
The comptroller of the currency has licensed nearly 500 national bank subsidiaries that deal directly with consumers in these and other types of retail activities.
Wachovia started the legal action in 2003 by bringing a federal lawsuit against Michigan's bank regulator, Linda Watters. The bank, which is based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and has no branches in Michigan, sought a declaration from the U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids that under the comptroller's recent regulation, its mortgage-lending subsidiary was no longer subject to state regulation.
Wachovia also brought a similar suit against Connecticut's Department of Banking. It won both cases, both at the district court and appeals court levels.
Other banks were bringing other cases at the same time. In all, four federal appeals courts have heard these cases, and all four, including the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in this case, ruled for the banks and against the states.
The court's consideration of the Michigan case, argued in November, coincided with heightened public interest in the mortgage industry as the falling real estate market and resulting foreclosures have raised questions about predatory lending practices.
Some analysts said Tuesday that the ruling could shape the congressional debate over the need for tougher regulation to protect consumers.
"Congress could use it as an opportunity to look at the pre-emption doctrine and put their own stamp on it," said Brian Gardner, a Washington policy analyst at Keefe Bruyette & Woods in New York. The risk, however, is that it could potentially complicate passage of a predatory lending bill, he said.
Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who heads the House Financial Services Committee, was presiding over a hearing on the foreclosure problem when the court announced its decision.
"We have to act on this," Frank said in an interview. "The court has eliminated a whole bunch of state consumer laws with nothing to put in their place."
National banks themselves have unquestionably been immune from state regulation. The issue arose only with the growing number of operating subsidiaries, authorized by the comptroller of the currency in 1966 to conduct various types of financial activities. States chartered and regulated these new institutions; Wachovia's mortgage lending subsidiary, originally called First Union Mortgage, is chartered by North Carolina.
The regulation issued by the comptroller of the currency in 2001 asserted that state laws could apply to national bank subsidiaries only to the extent that they could apply to the parent banks themselves, thus stripping states of authority they had been exercising for 35 years.
The legal question in the case was whether an agency regulation, which was not directly imposed by Congress and purporting to displace state regulatory authority, was entitled to the usual degree of deference that courts give to federal agencies.