The Independent Community Bankers of America sued the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency on Oct. 2, asking a federal court to overturn the agency's framework for chartering crypto trust banks and to vacate Protego's conditional approval.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, names the OCC and Comptroller Jonathan Gould as defendants. ICBA argues the National Bank Act confines non-deposit-taking trust banks to fiduciary services and related activities—not the broader crypto businesses the regulator has permitted.

The trade group wants the court to set aside a March 2026 chartering rule, effective April 1, and a January 2021 interpretive letter, and to bar the OCC from relying on either policy when granting or conditionally approving charters. Protego is the only firm whose individual approval the lawsuit asks the court to cancel; it does not seek to unwind every existing crypto trust charter.

What does the lawsuit mean for other chartered firms?

The distinction matters for companies that used the same chartering route. The OCC announced conditional approvals in December 2025 for:

• Ripple National Trust Bank
• BitGo
• Fidelity Digital Assets
• Paxos

Its pending-application list includes ZeroHash National Trust Bank, Payward National Trust Company and EDX Trust. The injunction ICBA requests would block approvals that rest on the challenged policies rather than impose a blanket ban on crypto applicants.

The filing escalates a bank-industry fight over crypto charters. ICBA contends the framework lets crypto firms compete nationally with community banks while sidestepping requirements—including deposit insurance—that apply to traditional depository institutions.

Why do the two sides read trust powers differently?

The OCC's January 2021 letter said national trust banks need not operate primarily in a fiduciary capacity, a role that carries duties to act in clients' best interests. The 2026 rule replaced references to "fiduciary activities" in the chartering regulation with "operations of a trust company and activities related thereto."

ICBA brings three counts under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the rule, the letter and Protego's approval. Beyond alleging the OCC exceeded its statutory authority, the group says the agency failed to adequately address risks and objections raised by commenters. It also argues the 2021 letter required public notice and comment before issuance.

The OCC's published rationale rejects the claim that the rule expanded its authority. The agency says national trust banks have long performed non-fiduciary custody and safekeeping services, and that the wording change aligns the regulation with the statute. It deliberately left outside the rulemaking's scope the question of whether a trust bank must perform any minimum amount of fiduciary activity.

How did Protego's approval frame the dispute?

Protego's proposed National Digital Trust Company illustrates the disagreement. In its Feb. 13 conditional-approval letter, the OCC described planned crypto custody, trading, lending and tokenization services, alongside fiduciary offerings such as discretionary staking and treasury management.

The approval carried financial conditions: at least $15 million in tier 1 capital and a separate liquid-asset buffer covering 180 days of operating expenses during the bank's first three years of operation. The letter expressly withheld final authorization to commence business until Protego satisfies all preopening requirements.

The case now moves to briefing before the D.C. federal district court, whose resolution could determine whether the OCC's April 2026 chartering framework survives—and with it, the regulatory pathway used by Ripple, BitGo, Fidelity Digital Assets, Paxos and a queue of pending applicants.