On October 19, 1977, two national banks located in New Jersey filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Commissioner of Banking of New Jersey, under New Jersey state redlining law, N.J.Stat.Ann. 17:16 F-1 to F-11. The plaintiffs alleged that the state ...
read more >
On October 19, 1977, two national banks located in New Jersey filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Commissioner of Banking of New Jersey, under New Jersey state redlining law, N.J.Stat.Ann. 17:16 F-1 to F-11. The plaintiffs alleged that the state redlining law violated the Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975 (HMDA) pre-empted the state reporting and disclosure requirements, with respect to national banks. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
In the course of litigation, the plaintiffs expanded their claims, challenging the whole of the state law as applied to national banks. They alleged that the congressional intent to pre-empt the field can be seen from HMDA and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on April 24, 1978.
On January 9, 1979, the District Court (Judge George Barlow) issued an order with respect to the cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court ruled that the reporting and disclosure requirements were pre-empted by HMDA. National State Bank v. Long, 469 F.Supp. 1068, 1074 (D.N.J. 1979). However, the Court ruled that the state law's substantive provisions and prohibitory requirements were constitutional in part and were not pre-empted. Id. at 1076. The only parts of the substantive provisions that were unconstitutional were in relation to investigations that the defendant was allowed to conduct in relation to reporting and disclosure requirements. Id. The Court entered a permanent injunction with respect to the unconstitutional parts of the state law. On April 12, 1979, the Court (Judge Clarkson S. Fisher) issued a supplemental order that the Court could not decide the validity of defendant's proposed amendments to the state law.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Third Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, claiming that Congress intended to pre-empt all state redlining legislation as far as national banks are concerned. On September 17, 1980, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's order with modifications. National State Bank v. Long, 630 F.2d 981 (1980). The Third Circuit affirmed the finding of unconstitutionality with respect to reporting and disclosure requirements. Id. at 986. It also affirmed the constitutionality of the substantive provisions of the state law. Id. at 987. However, the Court ruled that only federal officials could enforce the state redlining laws and held unconstitutional further provisions of the state law. Id. at 988.
The case is closed. Zhandos Kuderin - 11/13/2014