Smiley v. Citibank | |
---|---|
Argued April 24, 1996 Decided June 3, 1996 | |
Full case name | Barbara Smiley v. Citibank (South Dakota), N. A. |
Citations | 517 U.S. 735 (more) 116 S. Ct. 1730; 135 L. Ed. 2d 25; 1996 U.S. LEXIS 3594 |
Case history | |
Prior | Class action complaint dismissed, Superior Court of California, affirmed by Court of Appeal, 26 Cal. App. 4th 1767, 32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 562 (1994); judgment affirmed, Supreme Court of California, 11 Cal. 4th 138, 900 P.2d 690 (1995); certiorari granted, 516 U.S. ___, (1995) |
Holding | |
Comptroller of Currency regulation including credit card late fees and other penalties within the definition of interest was reasonable enough that Court defers to its expertise, thus individual states cannot limit them when charged by nationally-chartered banks | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Scalia, joined by unanimous |
Laws applied | |
National Banking Act |
Smiley v. Citibank, 517 U.S. 735 (1996), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a regulation of the Comptroller of Currency which included credit card late fees and other penalties within the definition of interest and thus prevented individual states from limiting them when charged by nationally-chartered banks. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for a unanimous court that the regulation was reasonable enough under the Court's own Chevron standard for the justices to defer to the Comptroller.
The decision, which had begun as a class action in California, was seen as a victory for banks and credit-card issuers, who could mostly charge late fees as they pleased. For that same reason consumer advocates were displeased, warning that late fees could rise to previously unseen levels. They did, and one of the Citibank attorneys has expressed regret for his involvement.[1]
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search