Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Banking Legal Standing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee pauses "defense of state banking" bill after testimony; no vote taken
Summary
Senate File 135, which would authorize the attorney general to investigate and potentially litigate claims of disparate treatment of Wyoming state‑chartered banks by federal regulators, received testimony but was laid on the table without action.
Senate File 135, a short bill intended to assert Wyoming's interest in defending its dual‑banking system, was presented and discussed but not advanced. Sponsor Senator Rothfuss said the bill emerged from the Blockchain Select Committee and aims to give the state standing to investigate and, if warranted, take action when federal financial regulators impose disparate treatment on state‑chartered banks.
The bill would declare legislative findings about the dual banking system and authorize — but not require — the attorney general to investigate allegations that Wyoming state‑chartered banks have been treated differently by federal or other state regulators. The measure reads as permissive: the attorney general "may" investigate and "may" take any action deemed necessary to defend state interests; it does not appropriate funds.
Supporters, including members of the Wyoming Bankers Association, described regulatory challenges faced by state‑chartered banks and said the state sometimes lacked standing to join litigation. Jeremiah Bishop, State Banking Commissioner, described how the bill overlaps with his statutory duty to ensure competitiveness of state‑chartered banks, but said his regulation and the legal posture of the banking division require independence if the state were to intervene in litigation.
Witnesses raised concerns about potential litigation costs and fiscal impact; representatives of the banking association said they could see the bill being used, but cautioned the state fiscal exposure could be significant. Representative Scott Meyer noted that Texas litigation over bank regulatory matters had generated large costs. Because no committee motion to advance was seconded and no roll‑call was taken, the committee laid the bill on the table.
Action: No roll‑call; the committee did not move the bill forward and laid it on the table. Sponsor and industry representatives said stakeholders may revisit the issue in future sessions.
