2025 Regulatory Summit

Cantero Refresher

The Court did not provide any bright-line test to determine if the “significantly interferes” standard is met. Rather, it said courts should assess whether a state law’s interference is “ more akin ” to the interference in cases where the Court found preemption or did not find preemption.

The Second Circuit failed to conduct the type of “ nuanced comparative ” preemption analysis that was necessary under Barnett , which involves “a practical assessment of the nature and degree of the LQWHUIHUHQFH FDXVHG E\ D VWDWH ODZ ´

aba.com | 1-800-BANKERS

23

Preemptive Cases for Barnett Consideration

Shoutout to Matt Lambert for this chart!

Facts

Preempted

Florida law outlawed banks selling insurance. National Bank Act provided power to sell insurance

Yes — Prevents selling insurance.

Barnett Bank v. Nelson

Yes — Prevents advertising a power enumerated by Congress utilizing same terminology.

New York law restricted use of “savings” in advertising to mutuals and thrifts (e.g. savings banks). Federal Reserve Act empowers banks to accept savings deposits.

Franklin National Bank of Franklin Square v. New York

California common law limited due-on-sale clauses. HOLA explicitly allowed due-on-sale clauses.

Yes — Prevents due-on-sale clauses.

Fidelity Fed. S. & L. v. De la Cuesta

California law required dormant deposits to escheat to the state without proof of abandonment. NBA empowers national banks to accept deposits.

Yes — Prevents unencumbered exercise of power to accept deposits.

First National Bank of San Jose v. California

aba.com | 1-800-BANKERS

24