U.S. Supreme Court rulings related to Banking & Finance Law

Banking & Finance:

1. Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. (1978)
   • Details: The case pivoted on the National Bank Act, which allows nationally chartered banks to charge out-of-state customers the interest rate allowed by the bank’s home state. Marquette National Bank sued First National Bank of Omaha, contending the latter was evading Minnesota’s interest rate cap by using its home state’s more lenient cap.
   • Significance: The decision shifted the credit card industry dynamics, leading many banks to relocate to states with more lenient interest rate caps, like South Dakota and Delaware.
2. Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. (2010)
   • Details: Foreign plaintiffs tried to sue both foreign and American defendants over securities traded on foreign exchanges. They relied on the Securities Exchange Act to bring the lawsuit in the U.S.
   • Significance: The ruling limited the extraterritorial reach of U.S. securities laws. It means foreign plaintiffs cannot easily sue in U.S. courts for violations related to securities traded on foreign exchanges.
3. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Reynolds (2010)
   • Details: This was about when the statute of limitations begins for securities fraud claims. The court had to decide when investors can be said to have “discovered” the fraud.
   • Significance: The decision provided clarity for investors and companies, stipulating that the two-year clock for investors to file a lawsuit begins once they actually discover the violation or a diligent plaintiff would have discovered it.

Immigration:

4. Plyler v. Doe (1982)
   • Details: Texas passed a law allowing school districts to refuse schooling to children based on immigration status or charge them tuition. The key debate was whether this violated the Equal Protection Clause.
   • Significance: The ruling emphasized that children, irrespective of their immigration status, cannot be punished for their parents’ actions. It also highlighted that education has a pivotal role in national development and should be accessible to all.
5. Arizona v. United States (2012)
   • Details: Arizona’s SB 1070, which included provisions to allow state law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws, was challenged. The question was whether states can enforce laws that might conflict with federal immigration policies.
   • Significance: By striking down several provisions of SB 1070, the Supreme Court reinforced that immigration is primarily a federal concern and states cannot undermine federal policies.
6. United States v. Texas (2016)
   • Details: This case involved an executive action by then-President Obama seeking to provide relief from deportation and work permits to parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.
   • Significance: The 4-4 split decision left in place a lower court’s injunction, which meant the DAPA program could not proceed. This showcased the limits of executive actions on immigration, especially when facing legal challenges.
7. Trump v. Hawaii (2018)
   • Details: This case examined President Trump’s executive order that suspended the entry of citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, citing national security concerns.
   • Significance: The ruling highlighted the broad discretion given to the Executive branch concerning immigration and national security, even if there are perceived underlying motives.