Case Updates
Over a dissent by Judge Nelson, Ninth Circuit holds that the Supreme Court’s decision in Cantero v. Bank of America does not upset circuit precedent holding that the National Bank Act does not preempt California’s interest-on-escrow rule
October 02, 2025
U.S. Chamber files coalition amicus brief urging Ninth Circuit to hold that state laws setting the terms of mortgage escrow accounts offered by federally chartered banks are preempted by the National Bank Act under the standard and methodology described in Cantero v. Bank of America (2024)
February 13, 2025
U.S. Chamber Coalition Amicus Brief
H. Rodgin Cohen, Matthew A. Schwartz, and Shane M. Palmer of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP served as outside counsel.
The U.S. Chamber previously filed an amicus brief in this case before the Supreme Court.
Ninth Circuit grants panel rehearing to reconsider whether state laws setting the terms of mortgage escrow accounts offered by federally chartered banks are preempted by the National Bank Act under the standard and methodology described in Cantero v. Bank of America (2024)
December 24, 2024
U.S. Chamber files coalition amicus brief urging Ninth Circuit to grant rehearing and reverse its decision that the National Bank Act does not preempt a California law that sets the terms on which federally chartered banks may offer mortgage escrow accounts authorized by federal law
October 16, 2024
U.S. Chamber Coalition Amicus Brief
H. Rodgin Cohen, Matthew A. Schwartz, and Shane M. Palmer of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP served as outside counsel.
The U.S. Chamber previously filed an amicus brief in this case before the Supreme Court.
Case Documents
- Lower Court Opinions -- Flagstar Bank, FSB v. Kivett (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- U.S. Chamber Coalition Amicus Brief, 10.16.24 -- Kivett v. Flagstar Bank, FSB (Ninth Circuit)
- Order Granting Rehearing -- Kivett v. Flagstar Bank, FSB (Ninth Circuit)
- U.S. Chamber Coalition Amicus Brief, 2.13.25 -- Kivett v. Flagstar Bank, FSB (Ninth Circuit)
- Opinion -- Kivett v. Flagstar Bank, FSB (Ninth Circuit)