Community bankers sue OCC over crypto trust-bank charter rule

The Independent Community Bankers of America sued the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency on October 2, challenging the federal regulator’s framework for granting national trust-bank charters to crypto-focused companies.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, according to Reuters and Bloomberg Law. ICBA alleges that the OCC exceeded the authority Congress gave it by allowing national trust banks to conduct substantial non-fiduciary business. The lawsuit matters now because it turns a long-running policy dispute over crypto firms’ entry into the federal banking system into a judicial test of the OCC’s chartering power.

The filing is an allegation, not a court ruling. No judge has yet accepted ICBA’s legal theory, invalidated the OCC rule or revoked a charter.

The rule at the center of the case

The challenged framework includes a final OCC rule published on March 2 and effective April 1, 2026. The rule amended the agency’s chartering regulation to use the statutory phrase “operations of a trust company and activities related thereto” instead of “fiduciary activities.”

The OCC said the revision clarified longstanding authority for national trust banks to perform non-fiduciary activities alongside fiduciary work. Its rulemaking record says such institutions must rely on separate statutory authority for each non-fiduciary activity and that proposed activities are reviewed case by case.

ICBA takes the opposite view. Reuters reported that the trade group wants the court to undo the rule and related guidance that it says opened an improper route for crypto firms to obtain federal trust charters. Bloomberg Law likewise reported that ICBA contends the structure permits crypto and other nontraditional companies to go beyond the custody and fiduciary services traditionally associated with trust banks.

The OCC’s published rule says it supervised approximately 60 national trust banks when the rule was issued in March. It also says most were uninsured, while a small number accepted deposits and carried Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance. That agency-wide snapshot does not establish the insurance, capital or liquidity treatment of every crypto applicant.

Why crypto charter approvals are in focus

The litigation follows a series of OCC approvals involving digital-asset companies. On December 12, 2025, the agency conditionally approved de novo national trust-bank applications from First National Digital Currency Bank and Ripple National Trust Bank, as well as conversions for BitGo, Fidelity Digital Assets and Paxos.

Those approvals were conditional. The OCC said each institution had to satisfy its conditions before joining the federal banking system, and the announcement did not establish that every applicant had opened or completed all pre-opening requirements.

The agency’s position is that new entrants can increase competition and that it applied the same review standards used for other charter applications. ICBA argues that the trust-charter route gives crypto firms the credibility of federal supervision without all protections and obligations that apply to insured community banks.

Reuters reported that an OCC spokesperson declined to comment on the new lawsuit. The regulator’s existing rulemaking record nonetheless supplies its substantive defense: Congress authorized national banks limited to trust-company operations, and non-fiduciary activities may be permissible when separately grounded in federal banking law.

What the lawsuit can and cannot change

The case could force a court to define how far “operations of a trust company” extends when the applicant’s business centers on digital assets. A ruling against the OCC could affect the rule and potentially the charter pathway ICBA challenges. A ruling for the agency could strengthen its claimed authority to evaluate crypto custody, settlement and related activities through national trust-bank applications.

For now, nothing in the reported filing automatically suspends the OCC rule or existing conditional approvals. The sources reviewed do not identify an injunction, hearing date, agency response brief or merits decision. The next verifiable milestones are the public docket, any request for preliminary relief and the OCC’s formal answer.