In The
Supreme Court of the United States
FIDELITY FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION
v.
DE LA CUESTA
Decided June 28, 1982
Justice O’Connor, Concurring
| Topic: Federalism* | Court vote: 6–2 | |
| Note: No other Justices joined this opinion. | ||
| Citation: 458 U.S. 141 | Docket: 81–750 | Audio: Listen to this case's oral arguments at Oyez |
* As categorized by the Washington University Law Supreme Court Database
DISCLAIMER: Only United States Reports are legally valid sources for Supreme Court opinions. The text below is provided for ease of access only. If you need to cite the exact text of this opinion or if you would like to view the opinions of the other Justices in this case, please view the original United States Report at the Library of Congress or Justia. The Sandra Day O'Connor Institute does not in any way represent, warrant, or guarantee that the text below is accurate."
Opinion
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, concurring.
I join in the Court's opinion, but write separately to emphasize that the authority of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to preempt state laws is not limitless. * Although Congress delegated broad power to the Board to ensure that federally chartered savings and loan institutions "would remain financially sound," ante at 458 U. S. 168, it is clear that HOLA does not permit the Board to preempt the application of all state and local laws to such institutions. Nothing in the language of § 5(a) of HOLA, which empowers the Board to "provide for the organization, incorporation, examination, operation, and regulation" of federally chartered savings and loans, remotely suggests that Congress intended to permit the Board to displace local laws, such as tax statutes and zoning ordinances, not directly related to savings and loan practices. Accordingly, in my view, nothing in the Court's opinion should be read to the contrary.
Notes
* At one point in today's opinion, the Court states that "we need not decide whether the HOLA or the Board's regulations occupy... the entire field of federal savings and loan regulation." Ante at 458 U. S. 159, n. 14.
Header photo: United States Supreme Court. Credit: Patrick McKay / Flickr - CC.