Chase Bank USA v. McCoy
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 09-329 | 9th Cir. |
Dec 8, 2010 Tr.Aud. |
Jan 24, 2011 | 9-0 | Sotomayor | OT 2010 |
Holding: The Federal Reserve Board's Regulation Z, in the version that existed before August 2009, did not require credit card issuers to give cardholders advance notice any time they raise the interest rate for default.
Plain English Holding: The Federal Reserve Board's Regulation Z, in the version that existed before August 2009, did not require credit card issuers to give cardholders advance notice any time they raise the interest rate for default.
Judgment: Ninth Circuit reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on January 24, 2011.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Last week's opinions: In Plain English
- Opinion analysis: CA9 loses again – agency brief interpreting regulations is entitled to deference
- Argument recap: Justices spar over deference to Fed
- Argument preview: Must a card-issuer inform a card-holder of a rate change in response to a default?
- Credit card holders' rights
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs
- Brief for Petitioner Chase Bank USA, N.A.
- Brief for Respondent James A. McCoy, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Chase Bank USA, N.A.
Amicus Briefs
Certiorari-Stage Documents
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for Certiorari
- Brief in Opposition (unavailable)
- Petitioner’s reply (unavailable)
- Amicus brief of the United States (Invited) (grant, vacate, remand in light of Federal Reserve Board’s interpretation of the regulations)
- Supplemental brief of respondent (unavailable)
Submit Event
