October Term 2005 · Docket 04-1186

Where is a national bank located for federal court jurisdiction?

Wachovia Bank argues its main office defines its state citizenship. Schmidt argues every branch location counts.

Official caption
Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Schmidt
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Andrew Frey argued for the side that brought the case, Wachovia Bank.

    He stated the main office location defines the bank's state citizenship.

    He rejected the idea that every branch office creates a new state of citizenship.

    Chief Justice Roberts questioned whether the main office address changes with charter amendments.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests how federal courts determine a national bank's state citizenship. This status controls whether a federal court has jurisdiction over the bank.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 28, 2005.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Wachovia Bank wants the Court to limit state citizenship to the main office location.

Schmidt wants the Court to count every branch office location as a state of citizenship.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Wachovia Bank argues the main office defines the bank's state citizenship under federal law.

Schmidt argues the bank is a citizen of every state where it maintains a branch.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the main office address changes when the charter amends it.

Justice O'Connor asked when the relevant statute was enacted in 1887.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute determines which federal courts can hear cases against national banks. It affects the geographic scope of federal jurisdiction for these institutions.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON