The Blockchain Association has publicly backed Custodia Bank’s bid to bring its long-running fight with the Federal Reserve before the Supreme Court. The trade group represents a wide swath of crypto companies and has weighed in on regulatory battles before. Its support signals that the industry views this case as more than a single bank’s dispute.
Custodia is a Wyoming-chartered special purpose depository institution built to serve digital asset firms. It has spent years seeking a Federal Reserve master account, the mechanism banks use to access the central payment system directly. Without one, banks must rely on intermediary banks to move funds, adding cost and counterparty risk.
The Federal Reserve denied Custodia’s application, and lower courts have sided with the central bank so far. Custodia has argued that the Fed lacks discretion to reject a state-chartered institution that meets statutory requirements. The Fed has maintained that it retains authority to evaluate risk before granting access to its payment infrastructure.
This case matters because master account access determines which institutions can operate at the core of the U.S. financial system. Banks with direct access avoid dependence on correspondent banks that can cut ties at will. Crypto firms have repeatedly cited this dependency as a vulnerability, especially after several banks that served the sector exited banking relationships in past years.
The Blockchain Association’s involvement adds institutional weight to Custodia’s Supreme Court petition. Amicus support from industry groups can influence how justices weigh the broader stakes of a case. It also signals to policymakers that the issue extends beyond one Wyoming bank’s ambitions.
The legal question is narrow on its face: does the Fed have discretion to deny a master account to an otherwise qualified applicant? But the answer could set precedent for how digital asset banks integrate with traditional payment rails going forward. A ruling favoring Custodia could open a path for other crypto-focused institutions seeking similar access.
Conversely, a ruling for the Fed would reinforce the central bank’s gatekeeping role over payment system access. That outcome would likely keep crypto banks reliant on intermediary relationships, a structure the industry has long criticized as fragile. Custodia’s case has moved through lower courts for years without success, making the Supreme Court petition a pivotal moment.
The Supreme Court has not indicated whether it will take up the case. Petitions of this kind often take months to be granted or denied. Until then, Custodia and the broader crypto banking sector continue to operate under existing constraints. The Blockchain Association’s backing does not guarantee review, but it raises the case’s visibility among policymakers and market participants watching the intersection of crypto and traditional finance.
Sources disagree on this story
This article was published before the reports below were compared. The reporting above stands; what follows is where the published accounts do not agree.
Outlets covering the Blockchain Association's amicus brief backing Custodia Bank's Supreme Court petition disagree on when the brief was filed and when Custodia filed its petition.
What all sources agree on
- The Blockchain Association filed an amicus brief supporting Custodia Bank's Supreme Court petition over Fed master account access.
- The Kansas City Fed denied Custodia's application in January 2023.
- Custodia lost in district court and at the 10th Circuit, and a full rehearing was denied 7-3 in March 2026.
- The Kansas City Fed must respond to the petition by September 11, 2026.
- Kraken Financial received a limited-purpose master account from the Kansas City Fed in March 2026, becoming the first crypto-native firm to hold one.
- Custodia Bank is a Wyoming-chartered institution founded by Caitlin Long.
- Custodia first applied for a master account in October 2020.
Where the reports disagree
1Date the Blockchain Association filed its amicus brief
The Blockchain Association filed an amicus brief on Wednesday supporting Custodia Bank's Supreme Court petition over Fed master account access.
According to a Wednesday amicus filing, the Blockchain Association asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether regional Federal Reserve Banks can deny master accounts to state-chartered institutions that are legally eligible to request access.
In an amicus brief filed Wednesday, the industry group argued that federal law requires the central bank to make its payment services available to eligible nonmember banks and that the Fed should not have broad discretion to deny access.
The Blockchain Association filed an amicus brief with the US Supreme Court on August 13, 2026, supporting Custodia Bank's bid to force a reckoning over one of the most consequential banking disputes in the digital asset era.
What would settle it: The Supreme Court docket entry showing the amicus brief's filing date under docket 26-62.
2Date Custodia petitioned the Supreme Court
Custodia petitioned the Supreme Court in August 2026, asking the justices to settle whether the Monetary Control Act — which states the Fed "shall" provide services to eligible nonmember institutions — actually gives regional Fed banks discretionary authority to turn qualified applicants away.
Custodia then petitioned the Supreme Court on July 10-11, 2026, asking it to review whether the Fed's discretion in these matters is actually as unlimited as the lower courts concluded.
What would settle it: The Supreme Court docket for Custodia Bank, Inc. v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors, et al., showing the petition's filing and docketing dates.
What to make of it
Treat the core narrative — that the Blockchain Association filed an amicus brief backing Custodia's Supreme Court bid, and that the Kansas City Fed must respond by September 11, 2026 — as established across sources. The exact calendar dates for the brief's filing and for Custodia's petition differ between outlets and should not be cited as fixed until checked against the Supreme Court docket.
Market Impact
A Supreme Court decision on master account access could influence how digital asset firms structure their banking relationships going forward. If Custodia prevails, other crypto-native banks may pursue similar applications, potentially reducing reliance on correspondent banking arrangements that have proven unstable in the past. This could lower operational risk for firms handling stablecoin issuance, custody, and payment services.
If the Fed's discretion is upheld, crypto firms may continue facing barriers to direct access to core payment infrastructure. That outcome would preserve the status quo, where digital asset companies depend on a limited number of banking partners willing to serve the sector. Market participants are likely to watch for any signal from the Supreme Court on whether it will accept the case.
The Blockchain Association's support elevates Custodia's fight over master account access into a broader industry concern. Whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case remains uncertain, but the outcome could shape how crypto banks connect to the U.S. financial system for years to come.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a Federal Reserve master account?
A master account allows a bank to hold funds directly at the Federal Reserve and access the central payment system without relying on an intermediary bank.
Why did the Federal Reserve deny Custodia's application?
The Fed cited its discretion to evaluate risk, though Custodia has argued it met the statutory requirements for a state-chartered bank seeking access.
What is the Blockchain Association's role in this case?
The Blockchain Association filed support for Custodia's Supreme Court petition, signaling that the industry views the case as significant beyond one bank's dispute.
What would happen if Custodia wins at the Supreme Court?
A win could set precedent allowing other crypto-focused banks to pursue direct Federal Reserve account access, reducing reliance on intermediary banking relationships.