10th Circuit Agrees to En Banc Rehearing in Colorado DIDMCA Opt-Out Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit granted rehearing en banc of a decision which ended an injunction against a Colorado law limiting the interest rates which could be charged by out-of-state state-chartered banks for loans in Colorado.
As previously discussed here and here, Colorado passed a law opting out of a provision of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA) which allows state-charted banks to charge the interest rates allowed in the banks’ home states for loans made in other states. This law was designed to give state-chartered banks a power similar to federally-chartered national banks, which have historically been able to lend money in any state based on the usury law limits in the state where the national bank is based, rather than the usury laws in the state where the loan is being made. DIDMCA allows states to opt out of this provision with respect to state-chartered banks, and Colorado passed an opt-out law in 2023. An industry trade association sought an injunction against the law. The district court granted the injunction, but that decision was subsequently reversed by the 10th Circuit, leading to the current request for rehearing en banc.
In addition to granting rehearing, the 10th Circuit asked the parties to expressly brief the following supplemental questions:
- Does the phrase “loans made in such State” in DIDMCA refer to “an executed loan” and encompass “loans in which either the lender or the borrower is located in the opt-out state”?
- How, if at all, should the reference in DIDMCA to “the State . . . where the bank is located” inform the meaning of “loans made in such State”?
- How, if at all, is DIDMCA’s enactment history instructive to interpreting the phrase “loans made in such State”?
- How, if at all, is the regulatory guidance instructive to interpreting the phrase “loans made in such State”?
- Is the phrase “loans made in such State” ambiguous?
- Does a presumption against preemption apply in this case?
