Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “the Supremacy Clause does not permit” states to “subordinate federal property to their own laws and appropriate that property . . . for themselves”
• observing that states seeking custody over funds in a federal unclaimed property fund “claim[ed] no escheat,” but rather “s[ought] only temporary custody over the money until the rightful owners appear with valid claims”
• observing that states seeking custody over funds in a federal unclaimed property fund “elaim[ed] no escheat,” but rather “s[ought] only temporary custody over the money until the rightful owners appear with valid claims”
• analyzing whether states could assume custody of “money that federal agencies owe[d] to American citizens whose whereabouts [were] unknown” when federal law authorized only the Secretary of the Treasury to do so
• “[w]hen the United States sets aside money for the payment of specific debts, it does not thereby lose its property interest in that money”
• state unclaimed property laws impermissibly sought to directly regulate federal property

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).