October Term 2023 · Docket 22-529

Does a state law significantly interfere with a national bank's powers?

The dispute centers on the legal standard for determining when state consumer financial laws preempt federal banking authority.

Official caption
Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A.
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official Court opinion 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

    Mr. Taylor argued that Section 25b preempts state laws only if they prevent or significantly interfere with bank powers.

    Mr. Stewart argued that the word significantly carries legal weight and requires determining if the outlay is significant.

    justice_thomas_questioned_how_barnett_bank_guides_interpretation_of_prevents_or_significantly_interferes

    justice_kagan_asked_what_exactly_it_means_to_examine_practical_effect

    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 asks how courts should interpret the phrase prevents or significantly interferes in federal banking law.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 27, 2024.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to apply a practical effect test to determine preemption.

the opposing sides want the Court to apply a test that examines the significance of the interference.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue that the practical effect of the state law determines whether it preempts federal powers.

the opposing sides argue that the word significantly requires a specific assessment of the interference's magnitude.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked how Barnett Bank guides the interpretation of prevents or significantly interferes.

Justice Kagan asked what it means to examine the practical effect of a state law.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the boundary between state consumer protection laws and federal banking authority.

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

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

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

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

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

Download this sanitized case as JSON