Clarke v. Securities Industry Association

Supreme Court of United States
479 U.S. 388 (1987)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A national bank's discount brokerage office is not a 'branch' subject to the geographic branching restrictions of the McFadden Act because dealing in securities is not a core banking function. Competitors have standing to challenge such agency interpretations if their interest in preventing monopolies is arguably within the 'zone of interests' protected by the relevant statute.

Facts:

In 1982, Security Pacific National Bank applied to the Comptroller of the Currency for permission to open offices offering discount brokerage services.
Around the same time, Union Planter's National Bank applied for permission to acquire an existing discount brokerage operation.
Both banks proposed offering these services at various locations, including those inside and outside their home states.
The proposed brokerage offices would act as intermediaries for margin lending, but the actual loan approval would happen at chartered bank offices.
These brokerage offices would also maintain and pay interest on customer credit balances that were incidental to the brokerage business.
The Comptroller of the Currency approved the applications from both Security Pacific and Union Planters.
The Securities Industry Association, a trade association representing securities brokers and investment bankers, opposed this expansion of bank services.

Procedural Posture:

The Securities Industry Association sued the Comptroller of the Currency in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The District Court held that the Association had standing and ruled in its favor on the merits, finding the brokerage offices were illegal branches.
The Comptroller and Security Pacific (as an intervenor) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment.
The Comptroller of the Currency and Security Pacific successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the McFadden Act, which defines a 'branch' as a location where deposits are received, checks paid, or money lent, prohibit national banks from operating discount brokerage offices at locations where state law would not permit a traditional bank branch?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice White

No. The McFadden Act does not prohibit national banks from operating discount brokerage offices at such locations. The Comptroller's interpretation of the National Bank Act is reasonable and entitled to deference. The Act's definition of a 'branch' in 12 U.S.C. § 36(f) is limited to core banking functions: receiving deposits, paying checks, and lending money. The business of offering discount brokerage services does not fall within these core functions and is instead an incidental power. The legislative history of the Act indicates that Congress did not intend to apply geographic branching restrictions to all activities national banks are authorized to engage in, such as the securities and safe-deposit businesses. Furthermore, the respondent, Securities Industry Association, has standing to bring this suit under the 'zone of interest' test because its interest in preventing bank competition aligns with a plausible legislative purpose of the McFadden Act, which was not only to ensure competitive equality between state and national banks but also to prevent the concentration of financial power and monopolies.

Concurring - Justice Stevens

Yes, I concur in the judgment. The respondent has standing and the Comptroller's interpretation of the McFadden Act is correct. However, the majority's lengthy analysis of the 'zone of interest' test is unnecessary. Standing is straightforwardly established because the history of the McFadden Act shows it was a compromise designed not only to ensure competitive equality but also to serve a broader policy of controlling the financial power of national banks. The Act reflected a fear that unlimited branching could lead to monopolies. As competitors of national banks, respondent's members have an interest in limiting the banks' power, an interest that falls squarely within the zone protected by the statute's anti-monopoly purpose. Therefore, respondent is a proper party to challenge the Comptroller's action.

Analysis:

This decision significantly broadened the ability of national banks to expand their services geographically without being constrained by state branching laws. By narrowly defining a 'branch' to include only 'core banking functions,' the Court gave deference to the Comptroller's interpretation and created a pathway for banks to engage in a wide range of non-core financial activities, like discount brokerage, nationwide. The case also affirmed a liberal application of the 'zone of interest' test for standing, confirming that competitors can sue a regulatory agency if their interests are plausibly related to any of the statute's underlying purposes, even a secondary one like preventing monopolies. This ruling reshaped the competitive landscape between commercial banks and other financial service providers.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Clarke v. Securities Industry Association (1987)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"