SPRINGFIELD, Ill.–America’s Credit Unions, the American Bankers Association and other plaintiffs in a lawsuit that challenges an Illinois law that places restrictions on interchange fees have filed a motion for summary judgement.

The plaintiffs have cited the court’s previous finding that they are likely to succeed on their argument that federal law preempts the state law. In addition, the plaintiffs also submitted testimony from an expert witness detailing the interconnected payment card ecosystem and why it is important that participants in that system be treated equally under any court orders, according to the ABA Banking Journal.

During a call with the media on Monday, ACU’s chief advocacy officer, Carrie Hunt, had also said the credit union trade group would be joining with the bankers and others in filing their motion.

IFPA is the Issue

The case involves the  Illinois Interchange Fee Prohibition Act (IFPA), which seeks to ban banks, credit unions, payment networks and other entities from charging or receiving interchange fees in Illinois on the portion of a debit or credit card transaction attributable to tax or gratuity. Last year, America’s Credit Unions, the ABA, the Illinois Bankers Association and other groups challenged the law in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, arguing among other things that the law violates multiple federal statutes, including the National Bank Act and the Federal Credit Union Act, noted the ABA Banking Journal. 

“Judge Virginia Kendall agreed that federal law likely preempted state law when it came to national banks and federal savings associations and issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement for those businesses,” the Journal stated, noting that later the judge expanded the injunction to include out-of-state banks.

Additional Requests

The plaintiffs are now asking her to further expand it to include all participants in the payment ecosystem, the Journal reported, noting Kendall’s past finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed because of federal preemption, they said the court should grant summary judgment and permanently prohibit the state from enforcing the law.