Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Blue Flame Medical LLC v. Chain Bridge Bank, N.A., et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 21-2218, 21-2219 · judgment March 20, 2023


Certiorari denied · October 2, 2023
Pre-decision estimate: 7% cert probability (95% interval 4%–11%)

Before the decision, about 1.6× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a circuit split argued in the petition, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and a business petitioner, and down for a business respondent.

Question presented

Respondent Chain Bridge Bank, N.A., wired over $456 million out of petitioner Blue Flame Medical LLC’s account without authorization. The question is whether petitioner’s state-law claims challenging that conduct are preempted by the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank’s Regulation J, Subpart B, which governs cash-equivalent interbank payment orders over the Fedwire Funds Transfer System, commonly known as “wire transfers.” The Fourth Circuit recognized that once a bank accepts a wire transfer and credits the funds to its customer’s account, that money belongs to the customer. That is the essential premise of a wire—it is immediate and irrevocable. Any dispute about the funds must be settled another way, for example, through litigation. Yet the court held that when a bank takes money out of its customer’s account without authorization and gives it back to the sender, there is no remedy. Regulation J failed to address this circumstance, the court held. And based on circuit precedent interpreting commentary— not Regulation J’s provisions or the enabling statute— the Fourth Circuit gave implied field-preemptive effect to the regulation, precluding any state law that might fill the gap. That understanding has been adopted in several other circuits as well. The question presented is: Does the Federal Reserve’s Regulation J impliedly preempt the field regarding the conduct of parties to a Fedwire Funds Service wire transfer, based on commentary to the regulation and Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code, as the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have held?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Daniel Hirotsu Woofter
Goldstein, Russell & Woofter LLC

For respondent
Gary A. Orseck
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Linked docket
22A1072

Proceedings

  1. Oct 02 2023
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Aug 30 2023
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
  3. Aug 28 2023
    Waiver of right of respondent JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. to respond filed.
  4. Aug 24 2023
    Waiver of right of respondents Chain Bridge Bank, N.A., John J. Brough, David M. Evinger to respond filed.
  5. Aug 17 2023
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 20, 2023)
  6. Jun 14 2023
    Application (22A1072) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until August 17, 2023.
  7. Jun 09 2023
    Application (22A1072) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 18, 2023 to August 17, 2023, submitted to The Chief Justice.