## Facts

- A national bank sought the Comptroller of the Currency’s approval to establish an affiliate offering discount brokerage services at bank branches and at separate offices located inside and outside the bank’s home state.
- The Comptroller approved the plan, concluding the nonbank brokerage offices were not “branches” under the National Bank Act because they would not receive deposits, pay checks, or lend money.
- A securities-industry trade association representing broker-dealer competitors sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging the approval unlawfully allowed de facto branches beyond the geographic limits imposed by 12 U.S.C. §§ 36 and 81.
- The district court held the association had standing and ruled for the association on the merits, treating the brokerage offices as “branches” subject to § 36 restrictions.
- The court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a competitor trade association had standing under the APA because its members’ competitive interests were arguably within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the relevant banking statutes.
2. Whether offices of a national bank’s discount brokerage affiliate that do not receive deposits, pay checks, or lend money are “branches” under 12 U.S.C. § 36(f) and therefore subject to § 36(c)’s geographic and state-law limits.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the association had standing because increased competition constituted injury in fact and the association’s interests were arguably within the statutes’ zone of interests.
- The Court reversed on the merits, upholding the Comptroller’s construction that the proposed brokerage offices were not “branches” within § 36(f).
- The Court allowed the approved brokerage operations to proceed without being treated as statutory branches, because the offices did not perform any of the functions enumerated in § 36(f).

## Legal Principles

- Competitors ordinarily can show injury in fact when agency action authorizes new competition in their market.
- Under the APA’s zone-of-interests inquiry, a plaintiff need only show its interests are “arguably” within the interests protected or regulated by the statutory scheme; the statute need not have been enacted specifically to benefit the plaintiff.
- In applying the zone-of-interests test, courts may consider the broader statutory scheme relevant to Congress’s purposes, not solely the particular provision invoked.
- For purposes of 12 U.S.C. § 36(f), an office is a “branch” when it is a place where deposits are received, checks are paid, or money is lent; locations providing other services fall outside that definition absent those functions.
- A reasonable agency interpretation of the banking statutes it administers will be sustained where consistent with statutory text and supported by administrative and industry practice.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized competitor standing under the APA for a securities-industry association challenging banking regulator action and held that discount brokerage offices not performing deposit-taking, check-paying, or lending are not “branches” under § 36(f), thereby avoiding McFadden Act geographic limits.


Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass’n, 479 U.S. 388 (1987)