Alex Cantero, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Bank of America, N.A.

Two years ago, in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., 602 U.S. 205 (2024), this Court vacated a Second Circuit decision holding that the National Bank Act preempts a New York law requiring mortgage lenders to pay a minimum interest rate on funds held in mortgage-escrow accounts. The Court explained that the Second Circuit had taken too expansive a view of the preemption standard codified in Dodd-Frank, under which a state law like New York’s is preempted “only if ” it “prevents or significantly interferes with” a national banking power. 12 U.S.C. § 25b(b)(1)(B); see Cantero, 602 U.S. at 220-21. On remand, a divided Second Circuit panel again held that New York’s interest-on-escrow law is preempted. In doing so, the panel majority adopted an “approach that is just as capacious” as the prior approach that this Court unanimously rejected. App. 29a (Pérez, J., dissenting). And the panel majority expressly “disagree[d]” with a First Circuit case that applied this Court’s decision in Cantero to “reach[] the opposite conclusion” as to another state’s materially similar escrow-on-interest law. App. 27a. The question presented, once again, is: Does the National Bank Act preempt the application of state interest-on-escrow laws to national banks?