AFSA prevailed in its longstanding challenge to the Cleveland ordinance aimed at subprime lending. On September 22, the judge in the case invalidated the entire ordinance as being inconsistent with Ohio state law.

The judge found a conflict between the city of Cleveland ordinance and the state statute. The judge contended that as the state statute is general law, the ordinance is invalid under the Home Rule Amendment. In the AFSA v. Cleveland ruling, the judge specifically cited a separate ruling by a case concluded the previous month.

A different court in Ohio ruled on August 27 that an ordinance of the city of Dayton, Ohio, also violated the home-rule provision of the Ohio Constitution. The City of Dayton failed in its attempt to have the court find a State predatory lending law as an unconstitutional attempt to preempt local regulation. Because this win set an important and beneficial precedent, AFSA filed a copy of this decision with its case against Cleveland.

In California, AFSA is appealing the recent decision handed down in AFSA v. Oakland. The association decided on September 23 to petition the California Supreme Court to review the California Court of Appeals' ruling that upheld an anti-subprime lending measure passed by the city of Oakland. The California court of Appeals issued its ruling on September 17.

In a written statement, AFSA CEO Randy Lively said, "in challenging the Oakland ordinance, we do not seek to defend or allow abusive lending...our objective has been, and continues to be, a logical regulatory regime for mortgage lending. Such a regulatory structure cannot be built upon a patchwork of local and municipal ordinances..."