SUPREME COURT REVIEW SOUGHT ON PREEMPTION
In April, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found no clear congressional intent to permit removal under Sections 85 and 86 of the National Bank Act and thus determined Sections 85 and 86 do not completely preempt state usury claims. Anderson v. H&R Block, 287 F. 3d 1038 (11th Cir. 2002). The court stated that complete preemption is appropriate only when there is a clear showing of congressional intent to permit removal, which the court found lacking in regard to Sections 85 and 86. The court refused to follow the Eighth Circuit cases finding complete preemption without inquiring into congressional intent. The case involved state law usury claims relating to tax refund anticipation loans.
Defendants H&R Block, Inc. and Beneficial National Bank filed petitions for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on the question of complete preemption. 71 U.S.L.W. 3163 (Aug. 26, 2002) (No. 02‑306), 71 U.S.L.W. 3163 (Aug. 27, 2002) (No. 02‑312).