Beneficial National Bank, et al. v. Marie Anderson et al. (539 U.S. 1)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 2, 2003 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 539 U.S. 1 · 123 S. Ct. 2058
- Decided
- June 2, 2003
- Term
- October Term 2002
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Stevens
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Reversed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. The question in this case is whether an action filed in a state court to recover damages from a national bank for allegedly charging excessive interest in violation of both “the common law usury doctrine” and an Alabama usury statute may be removed to a federal court because it actually arises under federal law. We hold that it may. Respondents are 26 individual taxpayers who made pledges of their anticipated tax refunds to secure short-term loans obtained from petitioner Beneficial National Bank, a national bank chartered under the National Bank Act. Respondents brought suit in an Alabama court against the bank and the two other petitioners that arranged the loans, seeking compensatory and punitive damages on the theory, among others, that the bank’s interest rates were usurious. App. 18-30. Their complaint did not refer to any federal law. Petitioners removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. In their notice of removal they asserted that the National Bank Act, Rev. Stat. §5197, as amended, 12 U. S. C. §85, is the exclusive provision governing the rate of interest that a national bank may lawfully charge, that the rates charged to respondents complied with that provision, that Rev. Stat. § 5198, 12 U. S. C. § 86, provides the exclusive remedies available against a national bank…
Excerpt of a 16,269-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.