Custodia Takes the Fed's Master Account Veto to the Supreme Court

What Happened

On Friday, July 10, Custodia Bank filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to review whether regional Federal Reserve Banks may refuse master accounts to state-chartered banks that meet the statutory eligibility criteria. The Wyoming bank filed on the timetable set by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who granted a 30-day extension on May 29 that made the petition due July 11, and it retained Kannon Shanmugam, one of the most active Supreme Court advocates in the country, as counsel of record.

The petition frames the question as whether regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents possess 'unbounded, unreviewable discretion to deny disfavored banks access to the Federal Reserve's payment services.' It targets an October 2025 ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which held 2 to 1 that Reserve Banks have exactly that discretion.

Custodia, founded in 2020 by former Wall Street executive Caitlin Long and originally named Avanti, was among the first banks chartered under Wyoming's special purpose depository institution (SPDI) framework, a state regime built for fully reserved banks serving digital-asset businesses.

It applied for a master account at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City in October 2020. The Kansas City Fed denied the application in January 2023, 27 months later, citing the risks of the bank's crypto-focused business model. Custodia sued, arguing federal law entitled it to the account.

It lost summary judgment at the district court in March 2024, lost 2 to 1 at a Tenth Circuit panel on October 31, 2025, and lost its bid for rehearing before the full Tenth Circuit on March 13, 2026, over the recorded disagreement of 3 judges.

The petition states the quiet part plainly: access to the dollar's settlement layer is a permission, and a permission can be refused. Bitcoin's settlement layer never learned to ask.

One Statute, Two Readings, and an Unaccountable Veto

The statutory fight is narrow and consequential. The Monetary Control Act of 1980 (MCA) says the Federal Reserve's services 'shall be available' to nonmember depository institutions on the same pricing terms member banks get. Custodia reads that as an entitlement: if a bank is legally eligible, a Reserve Bank has no authority to refuse it access.

The Fed reads the MCA as a pricing statute, one that governs what the Fed charges once it chooses to provide services, while leaving the underlying account decision discretionary. Every court so far has accepted the Fed's reading, but not comfortably: the Tenth Circuit panel split, and 3 judges dissented from the full court's refusal to rehear the case.

The petition adds a structural argument aimed at this particular Court. The president of the Kansas City Fed is not appointed by the president of the United States or confirmed by the Senate; regional Reserve Bank presidents are selected by their own boards of directors, most of whom are elected by private member banks.

Custodia argues that deciding which banks may access the nation's payment system is an exercise of governmental power, and that power of that kind cannot rest with an official who sits outside every constitutional line of accountability. The argument lands at a Court that has spent recent terms redrawing the accountability rules for financial regulators, including its ruling earlier this month ending removal protections for SEC and CFTC commissioners, covered here in 'Supreme Court Strips SEC and CFTC Commissioners of 91-Year Removal Shield.'

Denied the Rails, You Rent the Rails

The practical stakes are what denial does to a bank that is otherwise legal. Without a master account, Custodia can operate only by routing payments through a correspondent bank that has one, paying for the privilege and inheriting that bank's risk appetite and regulatory pressure.

That is not a hypothetical fragility. In early 2023, the 2 banks that handled most of the crypto industry's dollar flows, Silvergate and Signature, failed within days of each other, and businesses across the industry lost their dollar rails over a weekend. Custodia's application carried an irony the petition leans on: according to the bank, it proposed holding roughly $1.

08 in reserves for every dollar of customer deposits and planned no lending, a model more conservative than the fractional-reserve banks that hold master accounts as a matter of course.

The Fed's position is not lawless, and the contrary case deserves its due. 3 levels of federal courts have now agreed the statute preserves discretion, and the Fed argues that risk screening at the account level protects everyone downstream: a mandate to serve every eligible applicant would strip Reserve Banks of their ability to keep weak or dangerous institutions off the settlement system, and Wyoming's charter regime was novel enough that caution had a rationale.

The question the petition forces is narrower than the Fed's defenders sometimes suggest, though. It is not whether the Fed may screen for risk. It is whether an unappointed regional official may do so with no published standard, no obligation to explain, and no meaningful review by any court.

What This Means for You

The structural lesson applies whether or not the Court takes the case. Account-based money is permissioned at every layer. Your exchange or fintech app banks somewhere; that bank either holds a master account or rents access from one that does; and each layer in that chain is a jurisdictional contact point that can be closed without a court order, as the 2023 debanking wave demonstrated.

Bitcoin held in self-custody is the notable exception: private keys settle on a network with no master account, no correspondent, and no application process. That difference is not ideological, it is architectural, and this case is the clearest live demonstration of it in the federal courts today.

The actionable posture: know your banking dependencies. If you rely on an exchange or a crypto-friendly bank for dollar on-ramps and off-ramps, find out which correspondent banks stand behind it, because that is where custodial risk concentrated in 2023, when USDC's issuer lost weekend access to $3.

3 billion at Silicon Valley Bank and the token briefly broke its dollar peg. Maintain more than 1 fiat ramp, ideally with different underlying banks. And keep long-term holdings in self-custody on a hardware wallet, so that whichever way the banking-access fight goes, a decision made in a boardroom you have never heard of cannot strand your savings behind someone else's frozen account.

What to Watch

The Fed's brief in opposition comes next; the Court often signals interest by calling for a response when one is waived. A cert decision is likely in the fall, after the justices return from summer recess, and 4 votes are enough to take the case. Watch whether the solicitor general weighs in and on which side, given the administration's stated crypto posture; whether master-account access language resurfaces in the market-structure legislation moving through Congress; and whether other state-chartered banks, fintechs, and Wyoming itself file amicus briefs.

If cert is denied, the chokepoint stands, and the venue shifts from the courts to Congress.

Tracked entities this report names, with total coverage across the archive. Follow one into the Actor Network to see every report it appears in.

Other reports that name the same tracked actors — a different thread than “related,” which follows wording. These are linked by who appears in them.