Whether FCRA broadly preempts state laws relating to the subject matters expressly described in 15 U.S.C. §1681t(b)(1), or narrowly preempts state laws only to the extent they address the specific issues addressed in the cross-referenced provisions of FCRA

QUESTION PRESENTED The Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) sets forth uniform standards governing the content of consumer reports throughout the country. To preserve that uniformity, FCRA expressly preempts state laws that impose additional requirements on the content of consumer reports. Congress was emphatic: “No requirement or prohibition may be imposed under the laws of any State ... with respect to any subject matter regulated under ... section 1681c of this title, relating to information contained in consumer reports.” 15 U.S.C. §1681t(b)(1)(E). Despite that clear command, Maine enacted two laws imposing its own rules on whether and how certain types of debt may be reported. The district court had no trouble concluding that those laws are preempted by FCRA. The First Circuit disagreed, narrowly construing FCRA to preempt state laws only if they regulate the specific issues that Congress addressed in §1681c, rather than the subject matter addressed in that section—namely, “information contained in consumer reports.” That cramped interpretation cannot be squared with the statutory text, this Court’s preemption precedent, or the decisions of other circuits interpreting 15 U.S.C. §1681t(b)(1). And the decision re-opens the door for a patchwork of state regulation of reports that Congress wanted governed by uniform standards nationwide. The question presented is: Whether FCRA broadly preempts state laws “relating to” the “subject matters” expressly described in 15 U.S.C. §1681t(b)(1), or narrowly preempts state laws only to the extent they address the specific issues addressed in the cross-referenced provisions of FCRA.