Custodia Bank Seeks Supreme Court Review of Fed Master Account Denial

Custodia Bank, a Wyoming‑chartered digital‑asset bank, has filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of a lower‑court ruling that the Federal Reserve can deny it a master account—a critical gateway to the nation’s payment system [1]. The bank requested a 30‑day extension, moving the filing deadline to July 11, 2026, after Justice Neil Gorsuch granted additional time [2][4].

Key takeaways

• Custodia argues the Fed’s discretion to deny master accounts conflicts with the Monetary Control Act’s requirement that services be available to eligible non‑member banks [1].
• The Tenth Circuit affirmed that regional Reserve Banks have discretionary authority to reject master‑account applications, a decision Custodia is challenging [1][3].
• A limited “skinny” master account was recently granted to Kraken, indicating the Fed is exploring narrower access pathways for crypto firms [1][3].
• The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, if any, will determine whether the Fed’s discretion is subject to judicial review [2][4].

Legal battle reaches the nation’s highest court

Custodia first applied for a Federal Reserve master account in October 2020, seeking direct access to the central bank’s payment rails. The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City denied the request in January 2023, citing risks tied to Custodia’s crypto‑focused business model [1][2][4]. Custodia sued the Fed in June 2022, contending that the central bank lacked authority to reject an application from a statutorily eligible depository institution. A Wyoming federal district court ruled against Custodia in 2024, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in a 2‑1 panel on October 31, 2025. A subsequent request for an en banc rehearing was denied by a 7‑3 vote on March 13, 2026 [1][3].

Now, with the Supreme Court petition pending, Custodia seeks clarification on whether the Fed’s discretion is lawful or must yield to statutory mandates. The filing deadline was extended to July 11, 2026, after Justice Gorsuch granted the bank additional time [2][4]. If the Court grants certiorari, it will decide whether the Fed can continue to exercise unreviewable discretion over master‑account issuance.

Emerging pathways for crypto‑related master accounts

While Custodia’s case proceeds, the Federal Reserve has begun offering limited master‑account access to crypto‑adjacent firms. In March 2026, the Kansas City Reserve Bank granted Kraken a “skinny” account with restricted capabilities, marking the first such approval for a crypto exchange [1][3]. Simultaneously, the Fed’s Board is developing a nationwide policy for similar limited accounts, though details remain in early stages [3]. These developments suggest a potential regulatory shift toward more nuanced access for digital‑asset institutions, even as the broader legal question remains unresolved.

Why it matters

The outcome of Custodia’s Supreme Court petition could reshape the regulatory landscape for cryptocurrency banks seeking direct participation in the U.S. payments system. A ruling that limits the Fed’s discretion may compel the central bank to grant master accounts to eligible crypto‑focused banks, enhancing their operational independence and reducing reliance on intermediary banks. Conversely, a decision upholding the Fed’s discretion would maintain the status quo, leaving crypto banks to navigate alternative, possibly more costly, pathways. The parallel emergence of limited master accounts for firms like Kraken indicates that the Fed is already experimenting with a tiered approach, which could become the de‑facto model if the Supreme Court declines to hear the case. The legal and policy trajectory will therefore influence how digital‑asset banks integrate with the broader financial infrastructure in the coming years.