The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) filed an amicus curiae brief on July 28, 2026, in National Association of Industrial Bankers, et al. v. Sean O’Day, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. While the OCC takes no position on preliminary injunctive relief, it strongly defends the federal interest-rate exportation framework under the National Bank Act and the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (“DIDMCA”), and rejects Oregon’s interpretation of Section 525’s opt-out provision.
The case challenges Oregon House Bill 4116, which applies Oregon’s 36% usury cap to consumer loans of $50,000 or less made to Oregon residents, including loans originated by out-of-state state-chartered banks. Plaintiffs argue the law is preempted because DIDMCA permits opt-outs only for loans “made in such State,” which they contend refers only to loans made by banks located in the opting-out state.
OCC: DIDMCA Established Parity Through Bank-Location-Based Lending Rules
The OCC frames DIDMCA as a parity statute designed to eliminate the competitive disadvantage state-chartered banks faced relative to national banks under Marquette National Bank v. First of Omaha Service Corp., which confirmed that national banks may export interest rates based on the location of the bank.
Section 521 of DIDMCA extended similar exportation authority to FDIC-insured state banks, authorizing them (like national banks under 12 U.S.C. § 385) to charge interest based on the law of the state where the bank is located or 1% above the federal reserve interest rate, whichever is greater. The OCC emphasizes that Congress’s goal was competitive equality between national and state banks, not borrower-based regulation.
The litigation turns on Section 525, which allows a state to opt out of Section 521 for loans “made in such State.”
Oregon interprets “made” to include all consumer loans of $50,000 or less to in-state residents, regardless of where the bank is located. The OCC rejects this approach, arguing that the phrase must be read consistently with Section 521’s bank-location rule. Under that framework, a loan is “made” only where the lending bank is located and performs its lending functions.
In the OCC’s view, Section 525 therefore permits a state to opt out only for loans made by state banks located within that state—not for loans originated by out-of-state state banks to in-state borrowers.
Statutory Structure and Longstanding Interpretation Support OCC Position
The OCC relies heavily on the parallel structure between DIDMCA Section 521 and National Bank Act Section 85, noting that Congress used materially identical language. Because Section 85 has long been interpreted to tie permissible interest rates to the location of the bank—not the borrower—the OCC argues the same interpretation must apply to DIDMCA.
The brief also cites consistent federal regulatory practice:
- Marquette established bank-location-based rate exportation for national banks;
- OCC interpretive guidance has consistently focused on where lending decisions are made; and
- the FDIC has applied the same bank-location framework to state-chartered banks under DIDMCA.
Under this longstanding approach, borrower location has never determined applicable usury law.
Oregon’s Approach Would Disrupt Interstate Lending
The OCC warns that Oregon’s interpretation would allow any opt-out state to regulate loans originated in all other states simply because borrowers reside within Oregon. This, the OCC argues, would:
- undermine the parity between national and state banks that DIDMCA was designed to achieve;
- replace a uniform lending framework with a patchwork of conflicting state usury regimes;
- create significant legal uncertainty for interstate lending; and
- risk destabilizing the dual banking system by encouraging more state opt-outs.
The OCC stresses that Section 525 was intended as a narrow exception, not a mechanism for broad extraterritorial regulation.
Support from Prior Litigation and Regulatory Consistency
The OCC also points to the federal district court decision in the Colorado opt-out litigation, National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser, which held that a loan is “made” where the lender performs its lending functions. The OCC cites it as persuasive authority consistent with the statutory structure.
The brief also urges the court not to disturb the settled meaning of “where the bank is located” in Section 521, warning that doing so could unsettle decades of consistent interpretation under both DIDMCA and the National Bank Act.
Significance of the OCC’s Position
The OCC’s participation underscores the federal government’s interest in maintaining a uniform, bank-location-based interest-rate exportation regime. As the primary regulator of national banks and a member of the FDIC Board, the OCC emphasizes that DIDMCA was enacted to eliminate competitive disparities between national and state banks, not to expand state authority over out-of-state state bank lending.
The brief also reflects longstanding OCC and FDIC alignment on the interpretation of DIDMCA and reinforces the OCC’s view that Oregon’s reading of Section 525 is inconsistent with congressional intent and the structure of federal banking law.
We will continue to monitor developments in this case, which will have significant implications for interstate lending, state usury laws, and the scope of DIDMCA opt-out authority.
Ballard Spahr represents the plaintiff trade associations in the Oregon case and the amici consortium of other trade associations in the Colorado case.