Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-529_1b7d.pdf
Page Number: 12

8 

CANTERO v. BANK OF AMERICA, N. A. 

Opinion of the Court 

was preempted, Barnett Bank looked to prior cases of this 
Court  where  the  state  law  was  preempted,  as  well  as
several  cases  where  the  state  law  was  not  preempted. 
Given  Dodd-Frank’s  direction  to 
identify  significant
interference  “in  accordance  with”  Barnett  Bank,  courts 
addressing preemption questions in this context must do as 
Barnett Bank did and likewise take account of those prior 
decisions  of 
similar  precedents.
§25b(b)(1)(B).

this  Court  and 

The  paradigmatic  example  of  significant  interference
identified by Barnett Bank  occurred in Franklin National 
Bank of Franklin Square v. New York, 347 U. S. 373 (1954). 
The  New  York  law  at  issue  in  Franklin  prohibited  most 
banks  “from  using  the  word  ‘saving’  or  ‘savings’  in  their 
advertising or business.”  Id., at 374.  The Franklin Court 
concluded that the law was preempted because it interfered
with the national bank’s statutory power “to receive savings 
deposits.”  Id., at 374, 378–379.  Importantly, the New York
law  did  not  bar  national  banks  from  receiving  savings
deposits, “or even” from “advertising that fact.”  Id., at 378. 
Nonetheless, the Court determined that the New York law 
significantly interfered with the banks’ power because the 
banks could not advertise effectively “using the commonly 
understood  description  which  Congress  has  specifically
selected”  to  describe  their  activities:  receiving  savings 
deposits.  Ibid.  Federal law gave national banks the power 
not only “to engage in a business,” but also “to let the public
know about it”—and state law could not interfere with the 
national bank’s ability to do so efficiently.  Id., at 377–378. 
In  Barnett  Bank,  the  Court  compared  the  Florida
insurance  law  at  issue  there  to  the  New  York  savings-
deposit law at issue in Franklin, and the Court concluded 
that the two state laws were “quite similar.”  517 U. S., at 
33.  Because  the  Florida  law  interfered  with  the  national 
bank’s  power  in  a  way  similar  to  the  New  York  law  in 
Franklin, the Florida law was preempted.