|
United States Supreme Court
Several times during its existence, the Supreme Court has made decisions so unpopular with the public,
so protective of special interests, that action was taken to repair the damage. In the nineteenth century,
a slaveowner-dominated Supreme Court issued the Dred Scott decision, which upheld the rights of
slaveowners to an extreme that ignored relevant precedents. Most Americans rejected the biased ruling,
but it required the Civil War and three constitutional amendments to repair the damage. In the early twentieth
century Supreme Courts filled with corporate attorneys repeatedly struck down every attempt to regulate
hours and wages, despite the obvious need for such legislation. Because they protected special interests
and corporations, the laws the public demanded were not enacted until several progressives were appointed
to the Court. The flag-burning case [see State of Texas v. Johnson in Part III] led to several
new laws, but each has been as constitutionally flawed as its predecessors.
The case of A.T.& T. Family Credit Union v. First National Bank and Trust Company is
another of those decisions. Credit unions were established during the Great Depression to offer financial
options to millions of citizens whom regular banks refused to help, considering them bad risks. Over the
years credit unions had gone from enrolling just members of a specific business to openly welcoming anyone
who wanted to join. Credit unions traditionally offered lower interest rates and charged lower fees than
banks because they are member owned. This upset banks over the years, and the American Bankers Association
had demanded that credit unions be treated just like banks, and their membership restricted. Despite intensive
lobbying efforts, the ABA could not get Congress to comply to its wishes, but the Supreme Court did. Writing
for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas continued his support of entrenched interest against popular
wishes, narrowly interpreting the law establishing credit unions and declaring that credit unions could
not broaden their membership.
What reasoning did Justice Thomas use to reach this decision? What one issue did he focus on more than
any other? Now consider the much longer and more detailed arguments of the four dissenters. Which do you
consider better law? Better common sense? Congress agreed with the dissenters and the wishes of the American
people, because they quickly passed a new law authorizing credit unions to expand across the working populations.
The ABA lobby was not able to overcome the groundswell of support for credit unions.
|
