News Round-Up: Today’s Opinions
UPDATED 5:05 p.m.
Pete Yost of the Associated Press reports here on the Court’s decision in Watters v. Wachovia Bank N.A. (No. 05-1342); Reuters has this story on the ruling; Greg Stohr of Bloomberg reports here on the Court’s decision to restrict states’ power to oversee financial institutions; and in the Wall Street Journal, Mark H. Anderson has this article (subscription req’d) on the ruling, a victory for national banks. John Dimsdale of NPR’s “Marketplace” has this auido segment discussing the Court’s decision; Patti Waldmeir of the Financial Times reports here; and the Charlotte Business Journal has this article on the Court’s ruling in favor of Wachovia.
Yost also has this article discussing the Court’s decision in Global Crossing v. Metrophones (No. 05-705), which reinforces the FCC’s regulatory authority and upholds private companies’ right to sue over alleged violations of federal communications law; Stephen Chin reports here for TMCnet.
Additionally, the AP has this report on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Zuni School District v. Department of Education (No. 05-1508). In the Albuquerque Tribune, Susie Gran reports here on today’s ruling against the Zuni and Gallup-McKinley County school districts; Mark Walsh of Education Week has this article (registration req’d) on the Court’s 5-4 decision upholding the Department of Education’s interpretation of the Impact Aid Act.
The Watters v. Wachovia decision is good for national banks and their subsidiaries.
It will benefit consumers over time, as well.
Why this is so is explained in an amicus brief I and Competitive Enterprise Institute filed on behalf of seven prominent scholars who study credit regulation and financial services. The brief is available at:
http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,05589.cfm
Comment by Hans Bader — April 17, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Re Trinity Church cite: I think it’s clear that Stevens found it first; he would not have bothered to footnote it if Scalia’s dissent already included so fulsome a reference as the released version. The concurrence is part of Stevens’ campaign of piqueing Scalia over his decisional approach. Usually Scalia scores the meilleur mot, but this time it looks like Stevens drove him crazy.
roger friedman
Comment by r.friedman — April 17, 2007 @ 4:31 pm