Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-529_1b7d.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

CANTERO v. BANK OF AMERICA, N. A. 

Syllabus 

preemption  standard  incorporating  Barnett  Bank.   A  court  applying 
that  standard  must  make  a  practical  assessment  of  the  nature  and 
degree  of  the  interference  caused  by  a  state  law.    If  the  state  law’s 
interference  with  national  bank  powers  is  more  akin  to  the 
interference  in  cases  like  Franklin,  Fidelity,  First  National  Bank  of 
San Jose, and Barnett Bank, then the state law is preempted.  But if 
the state law’s interference with national bank powers is more akin to
the  interference  in  cases  like  Anderson,  National  Bank,  and 
McClellan,  then  the  state  law  is  not  preempted.    In  this  case,  the 
Second  Circuit  did  not  conduct  the  kind  of  nuanced  comparative 
analysis required by Barnett Bank, but instead distilled a categorical
test that would preempt virtually all state laws that regulate national
banks.  Congress  expressly  incorporated  Barnett  Bank  into  Dodd-
Frank, and Barnett Bank did not draw a bright preemption line.  The 
Court  of  Appeals  must  conduct  a  preemption  analysis  in  a  manner 
consistent with that standard.  Pp. 12–14. 

49 F. 4th 121, vacated and remanded. 

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.