The Independent Community Bankers of America filed a federal lawsuit on October 2 challenging how the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency charters national trust banks. The complaint targets a March 2026 OCC rule, an earlier interpretive letter and the preliminary approval granted to Protego’s proposed crypto-focused bank.
The case is a challenge brought by a banking trade group, not a court ruling against the OCC or Protego. Its claims remain allegations unless the court accepts them. The distinction is especially relevant to firms assessing charter options: the suit asks for agency actions to be vacated, but it does not itself cancel a charter or change the governing rules.
What ICBA is asking the court to do
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia as case 1:26-cv-03441. ICBA argues that the National Bank Act permits the OCC to charter non-depository trust banks only when they perform fiduciary activities. According to the complaint, the agency exceeded that authority by allowing broader non-fiduciary services under national trust bank charters.
ICBA asks the court to declare the March 2 final rule and Interpretive Letter No. 1176 unlawful. It also seeks to set aside Protego’s preliminary conditional approval. Those requests show the case has two levels: a broad attack on the OCC’s policy and a specific challenge to one charter decision.
The OCC has not adopted ICBA’s interpretation. Its February decision says Congress confirmed the agency’s authority to charter banks limited to trust-company operations. The agency concluded that Protego’s proposed custody and related services fall within trust-company operations or activities related to them.
Protego does not yet have final authorization
The OCC decision describes four planned business lines: crypto-asset custody, trading, lending and borrowing, and issuer services. It also lists proposed services connected to custody, including staking, protocol governance and treasury management in a fiduciary capacity.
However, the approval is preliminary and conditional. The OCC document says Protego cannot begin business under the charter until it meets all preopening requirements and receives final approval. The agency also retained the ability to modify, suspend or rescind the preliminary decision if later developments warrant it.
That status limits what can be inferred from the lawsuit. Protego has an agency approval to continue toward opening, not an unconditional authorization to operate. At the same time, ICBA is contesting the legal basis the OCC used before the process reaches that final stage.
What to watch next
The first questions are procedural: how the OCC responds, whether Protego intervenes and whether the court reaches the merits of ICBA’s statutory argument. Any order affecting the March rule, Interpretive Letter No. 1176 or Protego’s approval would carry more weight than the parties’ opening claims.
For crypto companies considering national trust structures, the immediate lesson is narrower. A preliminary approval can remain exposed to litigation over the agency’s authority, while the underlying applicant must still satisfy operational conditions. Until a court rules or the agency changes course, the complaint and the OCC decision present competing legal positions rather than a settled outcome.
Adapted from ICBA Sues OCC Over Crypto Trust Bank Charters.