October Term 2002 · Docket 02-306
Does the National Bank Act bar state-law usury claims against national banks?
A borrower argues state law allows a usury claim. The bank argues federal law provides the only remedy.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Seth Waxman argued the complaint alleges a national bank charged excessive interest.
Mr. Roberts asserted the National Bank Act provides the exclusive cause of action.
Mr. Clark argued federal removal jurisdiction is limited by statute to federal cases.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 49-1
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on whether federal law preempts state usury claims against national banks.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 30, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
What each side wants
The bank wants the Court to confirm federal law provides the exclusive remedy.
The borrower wants the Court to allow the state-law usury claim to proceed.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
What each side says
The bank argues the National Bank Act has exclusively governed usury for over 125 years.
The borrower argues federal removal jurisdiction is limited to federal law cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the advocate to clarify the how the case got here of the case.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 49-1
Why it matters
This case determines whether borrowers can sue national banks under state usury laws. It defines the scope of federal preemption in banking disputes. It affects the legal remedies available to consumers nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 49-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 49-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-37 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 9-31 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 9-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-31
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.