Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n, LLC

Background

The dispute involves the New York Attorney General and national banks, with the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and a banking trade group intervening. In 2005 the Attorney General sent letters asking for nonpublic lending records 'in lieu of subpoena' to investigate fair-lending practices. OCC had a regulation saying states may not exercise 'visitorial powers,' including prosecuting enforcement actions or demanding records; lower courts enjoined the Attorney General’s threatened subpoenas and the Second Circuit mostly agreed.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the OCC’s regulation reasonably read the National Bank Act’s ban on 'visitorial powers' to bar state enforcement. The Court applied the usual agency-deference framework but concluded history and prior cases show 'visitorial powers' means sovereign supervisory oversight, not ordinary law enforcement in court. The Court ruled the OCC’s ban on state prosecuting actions was unreasonable, so states may bring judicial enforcement actions, though executive subpoena power can be narrower.

Real world impact

The decision lets state attorneys general sue banks in court to enforce state laws while limiting their ability to use unilateral executive subpoenas for investigative fishing. National banks retain the OCC’s exclusive administrative oversight such as on-site examinations, while courts and discovery rules now shape how states obtain bank records. The Court left room for limited federal exceptions where Congress expressly authorized state access.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas, joined by the Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Alito, would have deferred to the OCC under Chevron, treating 'visitorial powers' as ambiguous and reasonable to include state efforts to obtain records and enforce fair-lending law; he would have affirmed the lower court entirely.