Supreme Court Decision Strikes Blow against Tribal Online Payday Lenders

nclcBy NCLC

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 29, 2014

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) A Supreme Court decision yesterday will have serious repercussions for illegal online payday lenders who claim to be affiliated with a Native American tribe, according to National Consumer Law Center attorneys with expertise in payday lending and tribal sovereign immunity. Although the decision in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community was a victory for the tribe (which was resisting a state lawsuit over the tribe’s illegal casino), the Court’s reasoning demonstrates that tribal-affiliated payday lenders are not above the law.

“The game is up for payday lenders who attempt to cloak illegal conduct in tribal immunity,” said National Consumer Law Center Associate Director Lauren Saunders. “The Supreme Court’s decision makes clear that purportedly tribal payday lenders who loan off-reservation must comply with state laws, including interest rate caps and state licensing laws, and that courts can enter an injunction stopping illegal lending—even by tribal entities.”

In a key passage in its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that when a tribe conducts activity off-reservation, a state “has many other powers” beyond suing the tribe directly. “’Indians going beyond reservation boundaries’ are subject to any generally applicable state law”; the state may “deny a license.” If a tribe goes ahead with unlicensed activity, the state “could bring suit against tribal officials or employees (rather than the Tribe itself) seeking an injunction for, say, gambling without a license,” or even pursue criminal charges.

The Court stated strongly that a state “can shutter, quickly and permanently, an illegal casino,” and the same is true for illegal payday loans that claim a tribal affiliation. “First, both states and consumers can obtain court injunctions stopping tribal payday lenders from making or collecting illegal loans,” explained Saunders. “Second, off-reservation loans that violate state laws are unquestionable illegal even if made by a tribal entity, and any attempt by a payment processor, the payday lender’s bank, or a debt collector to take the money out of a consumer’s account is unauthorized and illegal.”

“Tribal sovereignty is an important principle that respects the dignity of nations mistreated throughout American history,” added Andrew Pizor, staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. “Fortunately, the Supreme Court decision affirms that states need not tolerate payday lenders attempting to use tribal sovereignty as a shield for illegal conduct.”

Related materials:

Supreme Court Decision Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-515_jq2i.pdf

NCLC’s body of work re: payday lending: http://www.nclc.org/issues/payday-loans.html.

###

Since 1969, the nonprofit National Consumer Law Center® (NCLC®) has worked for consumer justice and economic security for low-income and other disadvantaged people, including older adults, in the U.S. through its expertise in policy analysis and advocacy, publications, litigation, expert witness services, and training. www.nclc.org

Using e-mail is inherently insecure. Confidential information, including account numbers, credit card numbers, etc., should never be transmitted via e-mail or e-mail attachment. NCLC is not responsible for the loss or unauthorized disclosure of confidential information sent to NCLC via e-mail or attachment. This e-mail message is confidential and/or privileged and is for the use of the intended recipient only. All other use is prohibited.

CONTACTS: Lauren Saunders ([email protected]); Andrew Pizor ([email protected]); or Jan Kruse ([email protected]) or 617.542.8010

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

moran_cathy
April 28, 2024
The Academy’s webinar on the expense side of the means test produced more questions than time allowed to answer. Here are a few more answers (or admonitions).
Members
Angela scolforo
December 11, 2022
In the case of In re Ilyev, 17-12987-KHK (Bankr. E.D. VA July 26, 2022), Judge Kenney granted the Chapter 13 Trustee’s motion to modify the plan to require the Debtor to repay some of the $29,250 of disposable income he retained by not making his mortgage payments during an 18-month Covid forbearance. The Debtor never disclosed to the Trustee, or...
Members
March 28, 2021
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Junior mortgage lienholder not affected by modifications of senior mortgage. Under Pennsylvania law, the prepetition modification of terms of the senior mortgage had recapitalized interest and costs already owed but had not created new liabilities. As a result, the junior mortgage holder was not materially prejudiced. The Chapter 13 debtors could avoid the...
Members
moran_cathy
September 17, 2023
What do you do when you don’t know the answer to a bankruptcy client’s questions? After all, you’re a bankruptcy lawyer.
Members
supremecourt
Members
June 7, 2020
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction Chapter 13 practitioners certainly do not need to be told that a lender with a mortgage1 on the debtor's principal residence has a special position in a Chapter 13 case. A chapter 13 plan may "modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only...
Members
August 4, 2019
By Academy Staff Those who have been around consumer bankruptcy for a while remember the halcyon days when a Debtor surrendered property in the Plan; Plan was confirmed; lender would foreclosure and file its deficiency claim; Debtor would complete the Plan; and obtain a discharge of all unsecured debts including the deficiency balance. Lenders were able to realize on the...
Members
September 22, 2019
By Jan Hamilton, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Topeka, KS) I. The Plan1 A. Notions to Consider before the Plan is Filed… Time for Filing of the Plan. No later than 90 days after the filing of the case, the debtor is required to file a plan, unless the court extends the time if the “need is attributable to circumstances for...
Members
August 1, 2021
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) While the debtors failed to meet the high threshold to establish excusable neglect to permit their claim filed on behalf of a creditor after the bar date to be allowed, where a Chapter 13 case is dismissed and then reinstated prior to the expiration of the bar date, the...
Members
boltz2
March 17, 2024
“In response to Cathy Moran’s article from last week: Tracking Down the Illusive Mortgage Interest Deduction, I have a few questions to raise-“
Members

Looking to Become a Member?

ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.

Webinars

These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: