Custodia Bank’s Master Account Fight Ends: 10th Circuit Affirms Fed’s Broad Gatekeeping Authority Over Crypto Banks

Just days after the Kansas City Fed granted Kraken the first-ever Federal Reserve master account for a crypto-focused institution, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a 7-3 ruling against Custodia Bank—ending the Wyoming-chartered crypto bank’s five-year fight for the same access. The stark contrast between these outcomes raises immediate questions about regulatory consistency and charts the uncertain path forward for crypto banking in the United States.

Key Takeaways

• Fed discretion upheld: The Tenth Circuit held that Federal Reserve Banks possess broad, largely unreviewable discretion to deny master account applications from novel charter types, including Wyoming SPDIs.
• Constitutional and APA claims rejected: The seven-judge majority dismissed Custodia’s arguments that the denial violated equal protection, due process, and the Administrative Procedure Act’s prohibition on arbitrary agency action.
• Post-Loper Bright landscape matters: The court’s analysis navigated the post-Chevron deference environment following the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision, yet still found for the Fed on statutory interpretation grounds.
• Kraken approval creates inconsistency questions: The near-simultaneous approval and denial of similar applicants invites future challenges based on disparate treatment.
• Legislative action may be required: Absent Congressional intervention, crypto-focused banks face an uphill battle for direct Fed access.

The Kraken-Custodia Paradox

The central puzzle emerging from this week’s developments is straightforward: Why did Kraken succeed where Custodia failed?

Both institutions hold Wyoming Special Purpose Depository Institution (SPDI) charters under Wyo. Stat. § 13-12-101 et seq. Both sought master accounts to access the Federal Reserve’s payment infrastructure—Fedwire Funds Service and the National Settlement Service. Yet the Fed approved one and denied the other.

The Federal Reserve has not publicly detailed the distinguishing factors. Possible explanations include:

• Operational track record: Kraken has operated a registered exchange since 2011; Custodia was a de novo institution
• Business model differences: Kraken’s application may have involved different custody and payment activities
• Timing and policy evolution: The Fed’s risk assessment framework may have matured between the applications
• Capital and reserve structures: Differences in how each institution proposed to handle customer funds

This ambiguity is legally significant. Under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), courts may set aside agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Treating similarly situated applicants differently without reasoned explanation is a hallmark of arbitrary action. Future applicants—and Custodia itself, in any certiorari petition—may argue that the Fed must articulate a principled basis for the divergent outcomes.

The Legal Framework: Master Account Access

Statutory Authority

The Federal Reserve Act establishes the framework for master account access. Section 342 of Title 12 authorizes Reserve Banks to receive deposits from member banks and, under regulations prescribed by the Board, from other depository institutions. 12 U.S.C. § 342. The Monetary Control Act of 1980 expanded access to Fed services for all depository institutions, including state-chartered non-member banks. See 12 U.S.C. § 248a.

The operative question is whether this statutory language is mandatory (“shall provide access”) or permissive (“may provide access”). Custodia argued the former; the Fed and the Tenth Circuit concluded the latter.

The Fed’s Account Access Guidelines

In August 2022, the Federal Reserve Board issued guidelines for evaluating master account requests. See 87 Fed. Reg. 51099 (Aug. 19, 2022). The guidelines established a tiered framework:

• Tier 1: Federally insured institutions eligible for federal supervision—lowest scrutiny
• Tier 2: Federally insured institutions not eligible for federal supervision—intermediate scrutiny
• Tier 3: Institutions not federally insured—most rigorous review

Wyoming SPDIs fall into Tier 3. The guidelines require Reserve Banks to evaluate factors including: the institution’s business model and associated risks; its risk management framework; the potential effects on the financial system; and whether access would create competitive inequities.

Post-Loper Bright Deference Analysis

A critical backdrop to this litigation is the Supreme Court’s June 2024 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024), which overruled Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Under the prior regime, courts deferred to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Post-Loper Bright, courts must exercise independent judgment on statutory meaning, though they may still consider agency expertise as persuasive.

The Tenth Circuit’s majority opinion addressed this directly. Even applying independent judgment to the Federal Reserve Act’s text, the court found that the statute’s structure and legislative history support discretionary—not mandatory—account access. The permissive “may” in the relevant provisions, combined with the Fed’s explicit statutory mandate to maintain payment system safety and soundness, supported the denial.

The Tenth Circuit’s Holding

The court, sitting en banc, ruled 7-3 against Custodia on all claims:

Statutory Interpretation

The majority held that nothing in the Federal Reserve Act mandates master account access for state-chartered depository institutions. The statute grants Reserve Banks discretion to evaluate applications based on risk, and the 2022 Guidelines represent a permissible exercise of that discretion.

APA Claims

Custodia argued the denial was arbitrary and capricious under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) because the Fed failed to adequately explain its risk concerns. The majority found the administrative record contained sufficient basis for the decision, including concerns about Custodia’s novel business model, the absence of federal deposit insurance, and uncertainties in the crypto custody market.

Constitutional Claims

Custodia raised Fifth Amendment due process and equal protection arguments, contending that the Fed treated it differently than traditional banks without rational basis. The court applied rational basis review—the lowest tier of constitutional scrutiny—and found the Fed’s risk-based distinctions satisfied that standard.

The Dissent

Three judges dissented, raising federalism concerns. The dissent argued that allowing the Fed to effectively nullify state banking charters—by denying the practical infrastructure necessary for operation—impermissibly expands federal authority over state banking powers. The dissent also questioned whether the Fed’s stated risk concerns were adequately supported by the record, suggesting the denial reflected policy opposition to crypto banking rather than genuine risk assessment.

Practical Implications

For Crypto Companies Evaluating Banking Strategies

• Reassess novel charter value: Wyoming SPDI and similar crypto-specific charters may not provide the pathway to federal payment infrastructure that proponents anticipated. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis before pursuing.
• Consider traditional acquisition: Acquiring an existing bank charter with established Fed access may be more reliable than applying de novo as a crypto-focused institution.
• Explore the Kraken pathway: If Kraken’s approval was based on distinguishing factors, identify what those factors might be and structure applications accordingly. File FOIA requests for the Kraken approval documents.
• Maintain correspondent relationships: Until the master account pathway clarifies, correspondent banking through established institutions remains essential.

For Financial Institutions

• Correspondent banking leverage: Banks with master account access can expect increased demand from crypto firms. Price accordingly, but be mindful of potential fair access regulations.
• Partnership due diligence: When evaluating crypto company partnerships, assess whether the partner’s lack of direct Fed access creates operational or settlement risks.

For Legal Practitioners

• Track certiorari: The 7-3 split and constitutional dimensions make this a plausible candidate for Supreme Court review. The federalism arguments may attract interest.
• Document differential treatment: Advise clients to build administrative records that highlight any inconsistent Fed treatment, preserving APA challenges.
• Monitor Fed guidance: Any formal explanation of the Kraken/Custodia distinction will be essential for counseling future applicants.

For Policy Advocates

• Legislative pathway: Congressional action mandating non-discriminatory master account access for state-chartered institutions is the most direct solution. The dissent’s reasoning provides a framework.
• State-level advocacy: States that have created crypto banking charters may consider advocating directly with the Federal Reserve Board or their regional Reserve Banks.

Broader Implications for Crypto Banking

This decision arrives amid ongoing Congressional debates over stablecoin legislation, which may ultimately address master account access for stablecoin issuers. The Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act and competing proposals have contemplated various pathways for stablecoin issuers to access Fed accounts. The Custodia ruling increases the urgency of legislative clarity.

The decision also affects the competitive landscape. Traditional banks with established Fed access now have a structural advantage over crypto-native institutions. This may drive consolidation—crypto firms acquiring traditional banks—or regulatory arbitrage as firms explore international alternatives with more accommodating central bank policies.

What Comes Next

Certiorari petition: Custodia has 90 days from the Tenth Circuit’s mandate to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The federalism questions and the 7-3 split enhance its prospects, though banking regulation cases have not historically attracted significant Court interest.

Fed transparency: Pressure will mount for the Fed to explain the Kraken approval in detail. Congressional oversight committees may request testimony or documentation.

Additional applications: Other crypto institutions will study the Kraken approval closely. Expect additional applications designed to replicate whatever factors proved successful.

Legislative response: This ruling may accelerate Congressional action on crypto banking access, potentially as part of broader stablecoin or market structure legislation.

Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit’s Custodia decision crystallizes a difficult reality for crypto-native financial institutions: state banking charters alone do not guarantee access to the federal payment infrastructure that makes banking practical. The Fed retains broad discretion to evaluate novel charter types, and courts will not readily second-guess those risk assessments.

Yet the Kraken approval demonstrates this gatekeeping is not absolute. The challenge for the industry—and for regulators concerned with consistent, principled decision-making—is understanding what distinguishes success from failure. Until the Fed provides that clarity, crypto banking strategy remains an exercise in navigating profound regulatory uncertainty.

CryptoLaw.blog will continue to monitor developments, including any certiorari petition, Fed guidance, and legislative proposals addressing master account access.

---

This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this content does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws and regulations in the cryptocurrency space change rapidly—consult a qualified attorney for advice specific to your situation and jurisdiction. Seth Goettelman is licensed to practice law in Wisconsin and Florida.