I don't see how this Supreme Court Decision was Valid 09 28 2026

 I think what it did was take a Crucial Constitutional governed idea to be Governed by the Federal Government and dissolved it.  

"What law prevented thirty percent interest on credit cards and who nixed it?" Question by Thomas Paul Murphy

No single federal law historically prevented credit card companies from charging 30% interest. Instead, individual state usury laws originally capped consumer loan interest rates (typically between 12% and 18%). [1]

The entity that effectively "nixed" these caps was the U.S. Supreme Court, which completely deregulated credit card interest rates across state lines in a landmark 1978 decision. [1, 2]

How the Interest Caps Were Eliminated

• The Original Rules: For much of the 20th century, if you lived in a state with a strict 12% cap on interest, banks doing business in your state had to abide by that limit. [1]
• The Ruling: In the 1978 case Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that under the National Bank Act of 1863, a nationally chartered bank is only bound by the usury laws of its home state—not the state where the customer lives. [1, 2]

(That looks contrived to me.  As if we are somehow different people across state lines.  So nixing that law allowed big banks to expand into other states?  And they could charge higher interest in those states because they are not bound by the laws of the states that they are doing business in only their own state law?  That is gobbledygook.  Because they are a Federally Chartered Bank.  I mean I could pick it apart left and right.  But on the surface it is just bad.  In effect that Supreme Court decision eliminates usury laws.)  Why is it wrong?  It allows a bank from a different state to do business in your state and undercut or overcut the banks doing business in your state.  In effect it allowed a bank in a "foreign" state to not have to abide by banking laws (regarding interest usury laws) in your state and do business there.  And that brought up your rate to in that state because your bank in your state realized they could make more money by floating under the interest a bank from another state could charge? Thomas  So states are allowed to set their own laws if there is a unique reason to do so?  But this to me would seem to be something that should be clear cut and set by the Federal Government for the good of all of us.  And Republicans hate that idea.  In fact if a Republican has to read instructions in order to do something that is considered to hard work for them to have to do.  Things have to be easy for them.  They don't consider reading as a manly thing to do.  Being affiliated with human traffickers, that is what they consider manly.)

• The Fallout: This allowed credit card companies to relocate their operations to states like South Dakota and Delaware, which completely eliminated their interest rate ceilings to attract banking business. Because banks could now "export" these non-existent caps nationwide, local state usury laws became irrelevant, opening the door for the 20% to 30%+ APRs common today. [1, 2]

Modern Attempts to Cap Rates

When Congress passed major credit card reform via the Credit CARD Act of 2009, lawmakers debated adding a federal interest rate cap. However, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly rejected an amendment that would have capped credit card interest rates at 15%. As a result, the CARD Act protects consumers from arbitrary fee traps and retroactive rate hikes but places no ceiling on how high an interest rate can go. [1, 2, 3]

(Note: If you are looking at international news, the Supreme Court of India nixed a 16-year-old consumer tribunal ruling that explicitly labeled credit card interest rates over 30% as an "unfair trade practice," officially allowing Indian banks to charge beyond that threshold.) [1]

Are you trying to find out if there are any current protections against high interest rates on your specific accounts, or are you researching the history of consumer banking laws?

AI responses may include mistakes. For legal advice, consult a professional. Learn more

Marquette Nat. Bank v. First of Omaha Svc. Corp.

what did carter say about this circa 1978

President Jimmy Carter did not actively oppose the 1978 Supreme Court decision. In fact, his administration's broader economic focus was heavily centered on deregulation, and his subsequent legislative actions actually further dismantled remaining state usury caps.

Why Carter Accepted Rate Deregulation

During the late 1970s, the United States was experiencing historic stagflation, with inflation peaking into double digits. Because inflation was so high, traditional banks were losing massive amounts of money. If inflation was at 12% but a state's usury law capped consumer loans at 10%, banks literally could not afford to lend money. [1, 2, 3]

As a result, rather than attempting to reverse the Marquette ruling with federal interest rate caps, Carter and Congress chose to follow its momentum to prevent a total banking collapse. [1, 2]

Carter's Two Major Actions on Credit

Instead of capping interest rates, Carter took two different paths to address the credit landscape during this period:

1. He signed a federal override of remaining state usury laws: On March 31, 1980, Carter signed the landmark Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act. While Marquette deregulated national banks, Carter’s new law went a step further by federally exempting state-chartered savings banks, mortgage lenders, and installment lenders from local state usury ceilings as well. This was done to ensure local banks could hike interest rates high enough to keep up with inflation. [1, 2, 3, 4]
2. He tried to stop people from using credit cards altogether: In March 1980, as inflation spiraled out of control, Carter invoked the Credit Control Act of 1969. Instead of telling banks they couldn't charge high interest, he famously used a televised address to tell Americans that relying on credit cards was fueling inflation, stating that the nation seemed to have decided it could "beat inflation by borrowing". The Federal Reserve enforced his directive by imposing strict "special deposit" penalties on credit card issuers, which forced banks to temporarily freeze credit limits and aggressively discourage consumer spending. [1, 2, 3]

Ultimately, Carter viewed the elimination of strict interest caps as a necessary economic medicine to keep banks viable during severe inflation, while choosing to use public messaging and temporary credit controls to curb how much debt Americans were accumulating. [1, 2, 3, 4]

**********'

What sunk Jimmy Carter was the high price of Gasoline.  How come that in and of itself is not sinking Donald Trump?  I guess it has to do with the archetype of a bad person people like to consider as "their favorite?"

© 2026 Thomas Paul Murphy