Cantero v. Bank of America, N. A.
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Cantero v. Bank of America, N. A. and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Cantero v. Bank of America, N. A..
The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Second Circuit's decision, which held that New York's interest-on-escrow law was preempted by the National Bank Act. The Court emphasized the need for a nuanced analysis consistent with Dodd-Frank and Barnett Bank. The decision requires examining whether the state law significantly interferes with national bank powers.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Cantero v. Bank of America, N. A..
The Court held that the Second Circuit failed to properly analyze whether New York's interest-on-escrow law is preempted by federal law, requiring a remand for further consideration.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Cantero v. Bank of America, N. A.. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Preemption is relevant to Cantero v. Bank of America, N. A.
The case primarily deals with whether New York's interest-on-escrow law is preempted by federal law, specifically the National Bank Act as interpreted through Dodd-Frank and Barnett Bank.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: The Second Circuit failed to analyze whether New York's interest-on-escrow law is preempted as applied to national banks in a manner consistent with Dodd-Frank and Barnett Bank.
-
Why State–Federal Power is relevant to Cantero v. Bank of America, N. A.
The case involves the allocation of authority between state and federal governments concerning banking regulations.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Congress has instructed courts how to analyze federal preemption of state laws regulating national banks in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.
-
Why Commerce Clause is relevant to Cantero v. Bank of America, N. A.
The case indirectly involves Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce through the National Bank Act and its implications for state banking laws.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The United States maintains a dual system of banking. Banks with federal charters—called national banks—are subject primarily to federal oversight and regulation.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Cantero v. Bank of America, N. A. that support the summary and concepts above.
The Second Circuit failed to analyze whether New York's interest-on-escrow law is preempted as applied to national banks in a manner consistent with Dodd-Frank and Barnett Bank.
Congress has instructed courts how to analyze federal preemption of state laws regulating national banks in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.
Barnett Bank did not draw a bright preemption line.
