ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT