Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-529_1b7d.pdf
Page Number: 5

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 
United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to  notify  the  Reporter  of 
Decisions,  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D. C.  20543, 
pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–529 
_________________ 

ALEX CANTERO, ET AL., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF 
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PETITIONERS v. 
BANK OF AMERICA, N. A. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

[May 30, 2024] 

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH delivered the opinion of the Court. 
Federal law extensively regulates national banks such as
Bank of America and expressly preempts some (but not all) 
state laws that regulate national banks.  This case concerns 
the standard for determining when state laws that regulate 
national banks are preempted.  As relevant here, the Dodd-
Frank Act of 2010 expressly incorporated the standard that
this Court articulated in  Barnett Bank of Marion County, 
N. A.  v.  Nelson,  517  U. S.  25  (1996). 
  12  U. S. C. 
§25b(b)(1)(B).  That  standard  asks  whether  a  state  law 
“prevents or significantly interferes with the exercise by the
national bank of its powers.”  Ibid.  Because the Court of 
Appeals  in  this  case  did  not  apply  that  standard  in  a 
manner consistent with Dodd-Frank and Barnett Bank, we 
vacate and remand. 

I 
A 
The United States maintains a dual system of banking,
made  up  of  parallel  federal  and  state  banking  systems.
That dual system allows privately owned banks to choose