Case: State of Oregon v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
3:26-cv-01672 | U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
Filed Date: Aug. 11, 2026
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a case challenging two rules issued on May 15th, 2026 by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the federal regulator of national banks. On August 11, 2026, Oregon, New York, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Vermont, all states with Democratic attorneys general, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The plaintiffs sued the Office of the Comptroller of the currency under the Administrative Procedure Act. The first rule, called “The Preemption Determination: State Interest-on-Escrow Laws” (91 Fed. Reg. 29350 (Doc. No. 2026-10037)), issued by the OCC, declared that New York’s interest-on-escrow law, which mandated paying minimum interest to homeowners on funds held in escrow for property taxes and insurance, and 13 similar state laws, were preempted by federal law because they significantly interfered with national bank powers. The national bank powers come from the National Bank Act (enacted in 1863 and 1864) and federal statutory authority delegated to the OCC. The OCC’s second rule, called the Escrow Powers Rule (91 Fed. Reg. 29340 (Doc. No. 2026-10036)), claimed that national banks have the federal authority to establish and manage mortgage escrow accounts and set their terms – specifically whether or not to pay interest to customers.
Represented by their respective attorneys generals offices, the plaintiffs alleged that the OCC exceeded its authority, misapplied the Barnett Bank preemption standard. This standard was codified by Congress in the Dodd-Frank Act, a aw passed to prevent another economic collapse after the 2007–2008 financial crisis. Under it, a state law can be preempted if it prevents or significantly interferes with a national bank's exercise of its federal powers. The OCC reasons that requiring interest payments takes away the discretion the Escrow Powers Rule confirms banks have. The plaintiffs also alleged that the OCC failed to conduct the required case-by-case analysis or provide substantial evidence, and acted arbitrarily and capriciously. The plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and vacatur of both rules. The case was assigned to Judge Michael H. Simon. The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Sela Adegbile (10/8/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74219884/parties/state-of-oregon-v-office-of-the-comptroller-of-the-currency/
Akers, Nicklas Arnold (Oregon)
Borne, Rebecca (Oregon)
Burke, Suzanne (Oregon)
Filburn, Christopher (Oregon)
Gorodetsky, Lauren (Oregon)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74219884/state-of-oregon-v-office-of-the-comptroller-of-the-currency/
Last updated Oct. 25, 2026, 3:17 a.m.
Docket for: State of Oregon v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 11, 2026
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A coalition of 10 states
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Federalism (including 10th Amendment)
Other Dockets:
District of Oregon 3:26-cv-01672
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Case Summary of State of Oregon v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/48411/ (last updated 10/8/2026).