We recently provided an update in a case we’ve been following involving a lawsuit challenging a Nevada statute, SB 311, that allows an applicant for credit with no credit history to request that a creditor treat an applicant’s credit history as identical to that of the applicant’s spouse during the marriage.

Since our last blog post, the plaintiffs in the case, which consist of several industry trade groups, have responded to the defendants’ most recent motion to dismiss.  Responding to the defendant’s contention that the case is not constitutionally ripe for adjudication due to the absence of allegations of concrete harm, plaintiffs argue that they have alleged “specific facts illustrating how their members have incurred concrete harm as a result of SB 311.”   A central argument advanced by the plaintiffs is that federal law preempts SB 311.  They point to operational and compliance issues (and related costs) encountered as a result of trying to comply with both the new Nevada statute and existing federal law.  Asserting that they have demonstrated actual, present harm, the trade groups argue that an “inability to establish reliably sound compliance management systems exposes [their]  members right now to increased legal and reputation risks and enforcement actions.”

The plaintiffs also claim that they have alleged facts showing a “realistic threat that SB 311 will be enforced” against their members, citing the state’s decision not to stay enforcement of SB 311 and Attorney General Ford’s record of prioritizing anti-discrimination policies.