## Facts

- The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued a 1997 interpretive ruling stating that all national banks could act as agents in selling crop insurance protecting against crop-loss risk.
- The OCC relied on the National Bank Act’s “incidental powers” clause, 12 U.S.C. § 24(Seventh), reasoning that crop insurance was closely connected to agricultural lending and risk management.
- Insurance trade associations challenged the ruling, arguing that national-bank insurance agency activities are governed by 12 U.S.C. § 92, which authorizes insurance agency activity only for national banks located in towns with populations not exceeding 5,000.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the challengers and set aside the OCC’s interpretation.
- The OCC appealed to the D.C. Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether 12 U.S.C. § 24(Seventh) authorizes national banks nationwide to sell crop insurance as an “incidental” banking power.
2. Whether 12 U.S.C. § 92’s specific, population-limited authorization for national banks to act as insurance agents restricts reliance on § 24(Seventh) for insurance agency authority.
3. Whether the OCC’s interpretation was entitled to Chevron deference.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed summary judgment against the OCC.
- The court held that national banks could not rely on § 24(Seventh) alone to sell crop insurance as agents nationwide.
- The court treated § 92 as the controlling, specific statutory provision addressing national-bank insurance agency authority, including its population limitation.
- Because the OCC’s interpretation conflicted with the statutory structure and would diminish § 92’s function, it was not a permissible construction under Chevron.

## Legal Principles

- National banks possess only the powers Congress grants; asserted banking powers must be grounded in statutory text and structure.
- Specific statutory provisions govern over more general provisions addressing the same subject matter.
- The National Bank Act’s “incidental powers” clause does not permit an agency to authorize activities that Congress has separately addressed with explicit conditions or limits.
- Chevron deference does not apply where statutory text and structure foreclose the agency’s interpretation, including where the agency’s reading would render a specific limitation ineffective.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit invalidated the OCC’s attempt to authorize nationwide crop-insurance agency sales by national banks under § 24(Seventh), concluding that Congress addressed national-bank insurance agency authority through § 92’s specific, population-limited grant and that the OCC’s broader interpretation was contrary to the statute.


Independent Ins. Agents of Am. v. Hawke, 211 F.3d 638 (D.C. Cir. 2000)