Updated:
The Independent Community Bankers of America sued the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in federal court in Washington on Friday, October 2, challenging the regulator’s authority to charter national trust banks for cryptocurrency firms. The trade group seeks to overturn an OCC rule and related guidance that it says enable crypto businesses to operate under federal charters without the requirements imposed on conventional deposit-taking banks.
The lawsuit puts a legal test to a widening dispute over what a national trust bank charter permits and how closely such institutions should be regulated. ICBA argues that crypto-focused firms can offer services that compete with community banks while avoiding obligations such as deposit insurance and some capital, liquidity and community-lending requirements. The OCC has maintained in previous charter decisions that trust-bank activities, including cryptocurrency custody, can be permissible under federal law.
What the lawsuit asks the court to review
ICBA filed its complaint against the OCC and Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It challenges the agency’s March 2026 final rule on national bank chartering, Interpretive Letter 1176, and a conditional charter approval for Protego Trust Company. The complaint seeks judicial relief under the Administrative Procedure Act, including setting aside the challenged actions.
The group’s central legal claim is that the National Bank Act does not give the OCC the broad authority it asserts to charter limited-purpose national trust banks for companies whose activities, ICBA contends, extend beyond fiduciary services. The complaint reads a 1978 amendment to the law as confirming the OCC’s ability to restrict a national bank to trust-company operations—not as granting a general route for non-depository crypto firms to enter the national banking system.
These assertions are the plaintiff’s claims, not findings by a court. The case will require the parties to contest both the interpretation of federal banking law and how the OCC’s rules and specific charter actions apply to the businesses at issue.
Community banks’ regulatory and competitive concerns
ICBA says national trust charters give firms a federal status and the ability to operate across state lines, while leaving them outside requirements that apply to insured depository institutions. The complaint argues that this difference could put community banks at a disadvantage in areas such as custody, asset administration and wealth-management services.
The group also alleges risks to consumers and financial stability, pointing to the absence of federal deposit insurance at uninsured trust banks and arguing that customers may mistake a national charter for the protections associated with an insured bank. Those claims concern potential consequences asserted in the lawsuit; the complaint does not establish that a particular customer has suffered a loss or that any chartered firm has failed.
In its filing, ICBA says the OCC has approved or conditionally approved 21 national trust banks under the challenged framework, at least 13 of them crypto companies. It offers examples of two unnamed member banks with less than $2.5 billion in assets, alleging they each spend more than $1.5 million annually on regulatory requirements and have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in business this year to crypto companies conditionally approved for charters. These figures are allegations in the complaint, rather than independently established totals.
The OCC’s rationale for trust-bank charters
The OCC is the federal agency responsible for chartering and supervising national banks. Its public materials describe a licensing process that evaluates applications and proposed activities, while its charter decisions have relied on statutory authority covering fiduciary services and related operations.
In a 2025 decision concerning Ripple National Trust Bank, the OCC concluded that proposed cryptocurrency custody and collateral-trust services could be permissible for a national trust bank. The decision also noted that the proposed institution would not be an insured depository institution. That ruling illustrates the distinction at the heart of the lawsuit: a national trust charter is a federal charter, but it does not necessarily mean the institution accepts insured customer deposits or performs the full range of services offered by a conventional commercial bank.
Reuters reported that the OCC did not immediately provide a substantive response to the lawsuit. CoinDesk reported that an OCC spokesperson said the agency does not comment on litigation. The regulator’s prior legal position, as stated in its charter decision, differs from ICBA’s claim that the charter framework exceeds the authority Congress granted.
Why the dispute matters to crypto firms and banks
National trust charters have become one route for digital-asset companies seeking federal oversight and permission to provide services such as custody. The OCC’s public licensing materials list applications from companies planning digital-asset products, while recent reporting has identified firms including Coinbase, Circle and Crypto.com among businesses pursuing or linked to trust-charter plans.
The status matters because it can determine which regulator supervises a business and which banking rules apply. A trust charter should not, on its own, be confused with FDIC insurance: the OCC’s Ripple decision expressly described the proposed bank as uninsured. The lawsuit argues that the distinction is not enough to address what ICBA sees as regulatory advantages and consumer-protection gaps.
The legal challenge arrives amid wider disagreements between the banking and crypto industries over access to financial services and competition for customers. It is specifically focused on the OCC’s chartering authority, rather than a general challenge to cryptocurrency activity or a request to decide every question about digital-asset regulation.
What happens next
The suit was filed on October 2, but the initial reports and complaint do not identify a hearing date or a schedule for the OCC’s response. The court has not ruled on the merits, and the OCC has not publicly announced whether it will defend the challenged rule and decisions in a particular way.
The case’s next substantive milestones will depend on court filings and scheduling in the District of Columbia. Until a judge rules or the parties reach another resolution, the complaint’s legal arguments and its estimates of competitive harm remain disputed; the filing itself does not revoke existing charters or determine the status of pending applications.
