Supreme Court to rule on credit card notice issue News
Supreme Court to rule on credit card notice issue
Photo source or description

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday granted certiorari [order list, PDF] in three cases. In Chase Bank USA v. McCoy [docket; cert. petition, PDF], the court will consider whether a creditor seeking to raise the interest rate on a credit card where the cardholder defaulted must provide the cardholder with a change in terms notice. According to Regulation Z, 12 CFR § 226.9(c) [text], a creditor must provide a cardholder with a change in terms notice when the contractual terms governing the account have changed. The court will determine if a change in the interest rate due to the cardholders default falls within the terms of the statute. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] found [opinion, PDF] that Regulation Z does require the creditor to provide the cardholder with a change in terms notice where the cardholder has defaulted triggering an increase in the interest rate.

The court will hear the case of Walker v. Martin [docket; cert. petition, PDF], where it will decide whether a state law barring a prisoner from collaterally attacking his conviction is adequate to support a procedural bar to filing a habeas corpus petition. A California state law prevents prisoners from collaterally attacking their judgment when the prisoner "substantially delayed" filing his habeas petition. The court will decide whether the law is inadequate to bar the collateral attack because it is vague and because state courts failed to apply the state law consistently. The Ninth Circuit found [opinion, PDF] that the state's law was not well-established or "consistently applied" and therefore did not constitute a procedural bar to collaterally attacking the conviction.

The court also agreed to hear Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy v. Reinhard [docket; cert. petition, PDF], in which it will decide whether the Eleventh Amendment [text] prevents an independent state agency from bringing an action in federal court against state officials to remedy a violation of federal law. The state of Virginia participates in a federal program designed to detect abuse and neglect at state-run medical facilities. The petitioner is the state agency given oversight over the medical facilities and is seeking access to records relevant to the deaths of two individuals who were residents of the state-run facilities. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that the suit by the petitioner was barred under the Eleventh Amendment and did not fall within the Ex parte Young doctrine [text].