The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down part of the regulation that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) adopted in 2004 to define the extent of preemption of state action under the National Bank Act.  I have written before about this case (Federalism and Consumer Protection - Cuomo v. The Clearinghouse Association).  The decision today (5 Justices on majority opinion, 4 on opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part) holds that state attorneys general can enforce non-preempted state laws against national banks, contrary to the position of the  OCC that such enforcement constituted preempted "visitation" under the National Bank Act. The majority opinion dismissed the OCC arguments in pretty strong terms (as lacking credibility), finding that earlier Supreme Court decisions clearly distinguish visitation from enforcement of state laws otherwise applicable to national banks.  In this case, the OCC had acknowledged that Congress did not preempt the state antidiscrimination laws in question, but argued that the state had no right to enforce its non-preempted laws, a position that the majority characterized as "bizarre". 

The significance of this case for state consumer protection law enforcement will be favorable, although perhaps shortly will be overshadowed by developments in Congress.  According to Barney Frank, the enabling legislation for the proposed and probably inevitable Consumer Financial Protection Agency will contain express protections enabling state consumer protection regulators (not just state attorneys general) to enforce local consumer protection law.  I expect that preemption questions under the National Bank Act will only increase in future as the states begin to exercise that authority.