Wyoming Crypto Bank Files Petition Demanding Full Court Review of Fed Account Denial
Wyoming-chartered crypto bank Custodia has filed a petition with the full Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking reconsideration of the Federal Reserve’s denial of its master account application, escalating a five-year legal battle.
The bank argues that the October panel decision misinterpreted federal law and raises constitutional concerns about the Fed’s authority.
The petition, filed on December 15, requests en banc review, asking all active circuit judges to examine whether regional Federal Reserve Banks can exercise unreviewable discretion over master account access for legally eligible institutions.
Custodia contends the three-judge panel’s 2-1 ruling conflicts with the Monetary Control Act’s mandate that payment services “shall be available” to nonmember depository institutions, creating what it describes as an unconstitutional veto power over state banking charters.
The filing raises federalism concerns about the Fed effectively overriding Wyoming’s 2020 decision to charter Custodia as a Special Purpose Depository Institution.
Without master account access, the bank cannot utilize core Federal Reserve payment services, including wire transfers and automated clearinghouse systems, rendering its state-issued charter largely meaningless despite meeting all statutory eligibility requirements.
“When the Fed denies a master account to a state-chartered financial institution, it effectively vetoes a bank charter that State regulators have approved,” the petition states.
Wyoming created its SPDI framework specifically to attract digital asset companies, requiring 100% reserve backing and prohibiting lending to reduce risk.
Custodia argues the Fed’s rejection undermines this carefully crafted state regulatory regime designed to foster blockchain innovation within stringent safety parameters.
The constitutional implications extend beyond federalism.
Custodia’s legal team contends that if regional Reserve Bank presidents hold unreviewable discretion over master accounts, they effectively become “Officers of the United States” wielding significant executive authority without proper constitutional appointment.
Federal Reserve Bank presidents are selected by private bank directors and approved by the Board of Governors, a process Custodia argues violates the Appointments Clause if those officials exercise the discretionary power the majority opinion affirmed.
Deep Judicial Split Emerges
The petition highlights growing disagreement among Tenth Circuit judges on statutory interpretation.
Judge Timothy Tymkovich’s dissent joined Judge Bacharach’s 2017 opinion in Fourth Corner Credit Union v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, creating a 2-2 split among circuit judges on whether the Monetary Control Act mandates master account access.
Tymkovich wrote that the Fed’s interpretation grants “unreviewable discretion” that raises “thorny questions” under Article II while contradicting the MCA’s plain language, which requires services to be “available to nonmember depository institutions.“
The Kansas City Fed denied Custodia’s application in January 2023 after 27 months of review, citing risks from its “crypto-asset activities” despite initially telling the bank there were “no showstoppers” with its application.
Internal Fed documents revealed that staff deemed Custodia’s capital “adequate” and praised its “impressive” executive team, only for Board of Governors officials to intervene.
Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller has since acknowledged publicly that the Fed possesses sufficient tools to manage risks without denying master accounts entirely.
In an October interview, Waller suggested the Fed can “tailor” account structures to match individual bank risk profiles, undermining the necessity argument for blanket denials.
OCC Exposes Systematic Crypto Debanking
Custodia’s legal fight unfolds as federal regulators confront widespread debanking practices targeting crypto firms.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released findings in December showing all nine largest national banks imposed “inappropriate” restrictions on lawful businesses, including digital asset companies, between 2020 and 2023.
JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, and others maintained internal policies requiring escalated approvals or imposing blanket restrictions on sectors deemed to conflict with institutional values.
The review examined thousands of complaints about political and religious debanking, as well as crypto exclusions.
Banks insisted they did not discriminate, but the OCC found many restrictive policies were publicly visible.
In fact, Strike CEO Jack Mallers recently claimed his accounts were abruptly closed under vague references to “concerning activity,” fueling allegations of coordinated exclusion despite regulatory denials.
The controversy intensified after President Trump signed an executive order in August intended to prevent banks from debanking customers solely for crypto-related activity.
You May Also Like
Why Smart Whales Abandon Cardano And Solana, Choosing Pepeto Presale For 100x Potential
US Crypto Legislation: Unlocking a New Era for the Market Cycle
