Banking

Subscribe to Banking via RSS

Federal regulators recently took two coordinated steps that significantly shift expectations for how lenders and banks treat non‑work authorized individuals and their employers. On June 5, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a formal statement on how immigration status should factor into ability‑to‑repay determinations under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z. On the same day, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), jointly with the federal banking agencies and in coordination with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), released a detailed advisory on fraud, payroll schemes, and money laundering risks associated with the unlawful employment of non-work authorized persons, including specific guidance regarding the use of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) and Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs).

On June 4, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) filed an amicus brief in the Tenth Circuit’s en banc rehearing of National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser, supporting industry plaintiffs and arguing that the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) § 525’s phrase “loans made in such State” refers to the state where the bank is located and performs key lending functions, not where the borrower resides. The filing confirms the FDIC’s historical position on the DIDMCA opt out and directly bears on the limited applicability of Colorado’s opt out and UCCC rate caps.

On June 2, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and Federal Reserve Board (FRB) jointly announced another step in their effort to eliminate “reputation risk” from the federal banking supervisory framework, an effort prompted by Executive Order 14331 (Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans). The agencies updated a broad set of interagency documents to remove references to “reputation risk” and, in some cases, “reputation,” reinforcing their earlier decision to stop using reputation risk as a basis for examination findings or exerting supervisory pressure on financial institutions to avoid or exit certain banking relationships.

On May 19, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14406, “Restoring Integrity to America’s Financial System,” which establishes a new policy to safeguard financial institutions against structural credit risks and deter fraud and abuse. The order links illicit finance, immigration enforcement, and consumer credit risk, and directs federal financial regulators to tighten risk-based controls around non-work authorized populations and their employers. It reflects a policy view that even basic financial services, when offered without robust know-your-customer and due diligence, can facilitate terrorist financing, narcotics and human trafficking, and large-scale money laundering. At the same time, it expresses concern that lending to borrowers who lack work authorization or face a high risk of deportation may undermine safety and soundness because of heightened “ability-to-repay” concerns.

On May 27, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), Rise Economy (formerly known as the California Reinvestment Coalition), and two fair lending compliance companies (BLDS, LLC, and SolasAI) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) Regulation B (Subpart A) final rule, which implements the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), and was issued on April 22, 2026. The case, National Fair Housing Alliance et al. v. CFPB et al., is notable not only for challenging the CFPB’s significant rewrite of longstanding Reg B, but also because the NFHA and Rise Economy are the first consumer advocacy organizations to sue the CFPB over the final rule.

Yesterday, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Integrating Financial Technology Innovation into Regulatory Frameworks.” The Order directs federal financial regulators to review and streamline regulations, guidance, supervisory practices, and application processes that may impede financial technology (fintech) innovation and competition, and it asks the Federal Reserve to evaluate potential direct access to Reserve Bank accounts and services for uninsured depository institutions and certain non‑bank financial firms, including digital asset companies. The Order is the latest in a series of administration actions aimed at positioning the U.S. as a global leader in digital assets and financial technology.

On May 15, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) finalized two closely linked rules on mortgage escrow accounts that respond directly to the issues we discussed in our recent post, Second Circuit on Remand in Cantero: New York Escrow-Interest Law Is Preempted, Over a Vigorous Dissent. In that decision, the Second Circuit held that New York’s 2% interest‑on‑escrow statute is preempted as applied to national banks under the Barnett Bank standard, deepening a circuit split with the First and Ninth Circuits. The OCC’s new rules both adopt the Second Circuit’s view of the underlying bank powers and attempt to bring regulatory clarity to the interest‑on‑escrow preemption question for OCC‑regulated institutions nationwide.

On May 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its long‑awaited decision on remand in Cantero, again holding that New York’s 2% interest‑on‑escrow statute (General Obligations Law § 5‑601) is preempted as applied to national banks. This follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous 2024 opinion (discussed here), which vacated the Second Circuit’s earlier decision and instructed the court to apply the Barnett Bank “prevents or significantly interferes” standard through a “nuanced comparative analysis” of prior preemption precedents.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued an interim final rule extending the compliance dates for its 2024 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II website and mobile application accessibility regulations for state and local governments. This development is noteworthy for anyone watching the long‑running debate over web accessibility standards, as well as the potential implication of this rulemaking for a future DOJ proposed rule governing public accommodations under Title III of the ADA.

On March 13, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released its draft Strategic Plan for FY 2026–2030 and accepted public comment through April 17. The plan, required under the Government Performance and Results Act, sets the Bureau’s mission and priorities for the next four years and explicitly aligns the CFPB’s regulatory strategy with President Trump’s pro‑growth, deregulatory agenda.