This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Attorney General of New York argued that under the OCC regulation at issue, state antidiscrimination and consumer‑protection laws can be enforced against national banks by the Federal OCC and by private parties, but not by state attorneys general.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency contended that the OCC regulation pre‑empts the ability of any state to enforce its laws.
The Clearing House Association argued that Section 484 of the OCC regulations has a pre‑emptive effect that displaces the State’s investigative and enforcement machinery.
Background and question before the Court
According to Attorney General of New York, the dispute centers on whether the OCC’s regulations pre‑empt state antidiscrimination and consumer‑protection laws, thereby barring the New York Attorney General from enforcing those laws against national banks.
According to Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of the Comptroller maintains that the OCC regulations expressly pre‑empt any state enforcement authority.
According to The Clearing House Association, the Clearing House contends that Section 484 pre‑empts the State’s investigative and enforcement machinery.
What each side argues
Attorney General of New York
According to Attorney General of New York, state antidiscrimination and consumer‑protection laws can be enforced against national banks by the Federal OCC and private parties, but not by state attorneys general.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
According to Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the OCC regulations pre‑empt the ability of any state to enforce its laws.
According to Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Riegle‑Neal amendments require that the laws be enforced by the Comptroller of the Currency.
The Clearing House Association
According to The Clearing House Association, section 484 has a pre‑emptive effect that displaces the State’s investigative and enforcement machinery.
Ms. Underwood
According to Ms. Underwood, state law allows a motion to quash a subpoena that is overly burdensome or harassing, giving state courts control over excessive discovery requests.
Mr. Waxman
According to Mr. Waxman, historical visitorial powers allow state attorneys general to require compliance with state‑mandated rate schedules, as illustrated by the 1874 Attorney General v. Chicago and Northwest Railroad case.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 7069d01727ea4a3c3455-r1-9f07fefe037bbece.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.