7th Circuit affirms permanent injunction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction preventing the application of Indiana's Uniform Consumer Credit Code to an Illinois company because it violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In Midwest Title Loans Inc. v. David H. Mills, Director of the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions,  No. 09-2083, the state appealed the permanent injunction entered by the U.S. District judge in Indiana's Southern District against applying Indiana's UCCC against Midwest Title Loans, which is a "car title lender." Midwest had offices only in Illinois but had many Indiana residents travel to the state in order to obtain a loan. Midwest advertised in Indiana but stopped once it learned about the "territorial application" provision added to the Indiana UCCC in 2007. The provision says if an Indiana resident enters into a consumer sale, loan or lease with a creditor in another state and the creditor advertises in Indiana, the lender is subject to the code. That would require a license from Indiana to make consumer loans and would subject the company to restrictions on annual interest rates it can charge. The goal is to protect residents from predatory lending.

The 7th Circuit judges, who included U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan of the Northern District of Illinois sitting by designation, agreed with the District Court's injunction. They likened the instant case to that of Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U.S. 324, 337 (1989), and a hypothetical case of involving Indiana and out-of state casinos to rule the application of the state's UCCC to Midwest violates the commerce clause of the federal Constitution.

In Healy, Connecticut passed a "price affirmation" law that required brewers to commit that the prices they charged for beer in Connecticut wouldn't be any higher than the lowest prices charged in a bordering state. The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the law because Connecticut would be regulating prices in another state, albeit indirectly.

The Circuit judges also used the hypothetical of Indiana banning casinos because of massive gambling problems but requiring out-of-state casinos to obtain Indiana licenses that would limit a Hoosier to gambling no more than $10 per day.

"A state law of that kind, however well intentioned and genuinely beneficial to the state imposing it, would burden interstate commerce by restricting travel and a firm's ability to deal with residents of a different state, even though the law treated out-of-state businesses no worse (in our example, even slightly better) than businesses located in the state," wrote Judge Richard Posner.

Allowing Indiana to apply its law against title loans when its residents obtain them in a different state that has a different law would arbitrarily exalt the public policy of one state over the other, he continued.

All of the commercial activity involved with the loans happened in Illinois - the offices are located there, car keys handed over there, and checks were drawn and could be cashed there. The contract was made in Illinois, and that is enough to show that the territorial-application provision violates the commerce clause, wrote the judge.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.