Pre-emption
Journalism 201: whenever you have to pitch a story and you’re beginning with, “well, this court case involves some tenth amendment issues and a concept known as pre-emption but it really has to do with the way lending companies can treat their customers ...” the editors’ eye just sort of glaze over. Probably you're readers too.
If you're still awake, click here for my somewhat shortened story on a case that was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday. From the story:
Certain companies would be able to skirt laws designed to curb predatory lending and other shady financial dealings in North Carolina and other states if prior rulings are upheld in a case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.The case — Watters v. Wachovia Bank N.A. — pits regulators from all 50 states and consumer-protection advocates against the banking industry and federal government.
At the heart of the dispute is whether federal agencies can block states from passing and enforcing regulations on the subsidiaries of 1,900 national banks, those that have been chartered by one of four federal agencies.
If you’re still reading, bless you. And here’s some more background for you:
- Click here for a very good Washington Post story that ran in their business section this weekend. And here’s their story from today.
- There are a lot of places to find briefs in Supreme Court cases. The most reliable I have found is FindLaw. And the service appears to be free for SCOTUS cases, so you can’t beat that. Click here for the briefs in the Watters case.
- Click here to read the transcript of yesterday’s arguments. (PDF) For government junkies like me, this service is just the bee’s knees.
We’ll probably see a decision come out in the case in the Spring.
One bit of context that didn’t make it into the story: There are folks who will be in charge of financial services law in the newly Democratic Congress watching this case very closely. Both Rep. Brad Miller and Rep. Mel Watt, North Carolina Democrats on the financial services committee, have been pushing a federal predatory lending law.
One has to think that if this case goes against the state, the Congress may step in and “clarify” itself.