Posted on 01/24/2025 5:19:22 AM PST by MtnClimber
Federal law supersedes state law based on Article VI to the U.S. Constitution, which declares the Constitution and the Laws of the United States as the Supreme Law of the land. Except for issues that Federal banking regulations cede to the states, e.g., usury laws or foreclosure proceedings. the states have no ability to regulate the actions of a national bank, a Federally chartered savings association or a Federal credit union. For example, the state of Texas forbade chartering of state banks from admission into the Union until 1903. During that period, national banks operated in Texas unrestricted by state laws.
Yes, and Barron too. From Yahoo:
"Barron Trump was denied a bank account because of the 'cancel mob,' former first lady Melania Trump reveals in her new book. In her memoir Melania, the former first lady discusses the 'venom of cancel culture' she experienced after leaving the White House, just weeks after the January 6 Capitol attack.
Former President Donald Trump was in the political doghouse over his role in the brutal riot, but Melania writes that she and Barron were impacted too.
'I was shocked and dismayed to learn that my long-time bank decided to terminate my account and deny my son the opportunity to open a new one,' she said."
You know what I do for a living? I work in risk management with major banks. Believe me when I tell you banks are very much subject to all kinds of state laws. They can be inspected by state auditors. Cuomo when he was governor of NY threatened the banks with exactly that in order to get them to support gun grabbing. If NY can do it, other states can lean on them in the opposite direction using the exact same means.
Are the banks you work for chartered by the state banking department or the OCC?
The state banking departments or credit union regulators have zero authority over Federally chartered institutions. The Texas Department of Banking can enter a national bank but have no more authority than that agency would have over a sheet metal fabricator or a wholesale food distributor. Only the OCC and the Federal Reserve (in the latter case if the national bank has a bank holding company) have the authority to review the records of a national bank or a Federally chartered savings association.
A national bank or other Federally chartered financial institution is subject to state taxing authority or the state corporation commission if the Federally chartered financial institution has a bank holding company. If you are at a national bank, you may be seeing auditors from the state tax authority.
Nevertheless, state governments do have leverage over national banks because state agencies and pension funds have enormous deposit funds on which they can set conditions. There is also the publicity leverage; in a liberal state like New York, there is a lot of support for gun grabbing. Conversely, conservative states like Texas and Florida have used their influence to discourage banks from supporting ESG initiatives.
The global elites will have more heartburn when Marine le Pen is president of France and Nigel Farage is UK Prime Minister. The world seems to be waking up and even economic basket cases like Argentina are now prospering under conservative values.
They already pushed for this in Romania's election ("But on Tuesday the Strasbourg-based court threw out his case, ruling it fell “outside the scope of application of Rule 39,” which relates to when the court can issue such urgent orders. It did not rule on the merits of his case otherwise".
Supreme Court Announces Standard For Determining Whether Federal Law Preempts State Laws Regulating National Banks
Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 22-529 – Decided May 30, 2024
Today, the Supreme Court held 9-0 that there is no categorical rule for determining whether federal law preempts state banking laws when applied to national banks, and instead adopted a test focused on whether the law interferes with a national bank’s exercise of its powers.
What It Means:
The Supreme Court expressly rejected the competing categorical approaches advanced by the parties. The Court declined to adopt the bank’s proposed rule, which would “preempt virtually all state laws that regulate national banks.” It also rejected the plaintiffs’ proposed preemption standard, which would “preempt virtually no non-discriminatory state laws.”
The Supreme Court decided 9-0 against broadly defining federal power to regulate banks exclusively and severely limiting state’s power to regulate banks. Its right there in the decision.
So no change in the status quo.
What changed is they shot down the theory that states have little power to regulate national banks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.