## Facts

- Borrowers obtained “refund anticipation loans” from a national bank in connection with tax refund services.
- The borrowers sued in Alabama state court, alleging the bank charged excessive interest in violation of state common-law usury principles and an Alabama usury statute.
- The complaint pleaded only state-law theories and did not invoke any federal statute.
- The bank removed the case to federal court, asserting that the National Bank Act governs national-bank interest rates and provides exclusive remedies for overcharges.
- The federal district court denied remand and certified the jurisdictional question for interlocutory appeal.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed, reasoning that removal was improper under the well-pleaded complaint rule and that complete preemption did not apply.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether state-law usury claims against national banks are completely preempted and therefore removable.

## Issues

1. Whether state-law usury claims against a national bank are completely preempted by the National Bank Act, such that they arise under federal law for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
2. Whether 12 U.S.C. §§ 85–86 supply the exclusive cause of action and remedies for allegations that a national bank charged excessive interest, regardless of how the complaint is framed.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit in a 7–2 decision.
- The Court held that §§ 85 and 86 of the National Bank Act provide the exclusive cause of action and exclusive remedies for usury claims against national banks.
- Because the federal statute supplies both the substantive rule and the remedial scheme, a state-law usury complaint against a national bank is federal in character and is removable under § 1441.
- The Court stated that, for national banks, there is no state-law cause of action for usury.
- In dissent, Justices Scalia and Thomas agreed state usury law is preempted but rejected treating the preempted claim as a federal claim for jurisdictional purposes.

## Legal Principles

- Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal-question removal generally requires a federal claim on the face of the complaint; a federal preemption defense alone does not create removal jurisdiction.
- Complete preemption is a narrow jurisdictional doctrine that applies when Congress provides an exclusive federal cause of action and an exclusive set of procedures and remedies, converting the pleaded state claim into a federal claim.
- For national banks, 12 U.S.C. § 85 sets the permissible interest-rate standards, and 12 U.S.C. § 86 supplies the exclusive remedies and procedures for charging interest above those limits.
- A complaint seeking relief for allegedly usurious interest charged by a national bank necessarily arises under federal law and is removable, even if pleaded solely under state usury law.

## Conclusion

Usury claims against national banks are governed exclusively by the National Bank Act’s substantive limits and remedial scheme, so state-law usury pleadings are completely preempted and may be removed to federal court as arising under federal law.


Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003)