On July 9, three trade associations moved for a preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to block enforcement of Section 1, subsection 3 of House Bill 4116 against out-of-state, state-chartered banks, reasserting the preemption and dormant Commerce Clause theories from the trade groups’ June 15 complaint, previously covered by InfoBytes here. The plaintiffs also asked the court to advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the preliminary-injunction hearing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2), a request not made in the original complaint. In support of the motion, the plaintiffs cite the FDIC’s and the OCC’s June 4 amicus briefs backing their reading of DIDMCA’s Section 525 opt-out in a related appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, noting that a divided panel decision in that case was vacated after the court granted rehearing en banc (previously covered by InfoBytes here). On July 14, the court entered a scheduling order adopting the parties’ stipulated briefing schedule, setting deadlines of July 28 for amicus briefs supporting the motion, August 11 for the defendant’s response, August 25 for amicus briefs in opposition, and September 8 for the plaintiffs’ reply.

The plaintiffs argue that their state bank members have already incurred compliance costs under House Bill 4116 and would suffer additional irreparable harm, including lost revenue, lost customer goodwill, and diminished ability to compete with national banks whose interest-rate authority under Section 85 of the National Bank Act is unaffected by Oregon’s opt-out. They contend that an injunction would not disrupt Oregon’s regulatory scheme but would instead restore the status quo that had existed for 46 years since DIDMCA’s 1980 enactment, and ask the court to enter declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act alongside the requested injunctive relief.