## Facts

- Charles W. Klanke and other organizers applied to the Comptroller of the Currency, William B. Camp, for authority to organize a new national bank under 12 U.S.C. § 21 et seq.
- The Comptroller conducted the customary investigation of the proposed bank, its organizers, and local banking conditions.
- The Comptroller denied the application and later explained that, among other reasons, he found:
  - no adequate need for a bank at the proposed location,
  - insufficient ability and experience among the proposed organizers, and
  - the proposed bank would not be successful under the proposed leadership.
- Based on those findings, the Comptroller concluded that granting the charter would be detrimental to the public interest and inconsistent with the purposes of the National Bank Act.
- Klanke sued in federal district court, alleging the denial was illegal, arbitrary, capricious, and unfairly discriminatory.
- Klanke sought an order compelling the Comptroller to grant the charter or, alternatively, to state the terms and conditions under which the application would be approved.
- The Comptroller moved to dismiss, arguing that denial of a national bank charter is committed to his discretion by Congress and is not subject to judicial review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Comptroller’s denial of a national bank charter application is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, or instead is action committed to agency discretion by law.
2. Whether unsuccessful national bank charter applicants have standing to challenge the Comptroller’s denial.

## Decision

- The court held it had jurisdiction to review the Comptroller’s denial of the charter application.
- The court held the applicants had standing to sue.
- The court rejected the argument that charter denials are wholly insulated from judicial review.
- The court made clear that any review would be limited and deferential, and that plaintiffs carry a demanding burden to prove that the denial was arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, or otherwise unlawful.

## Legal Principles

- Administrative action is generally reviewable under the APA absent a clear statutory bar or a showing that the action is committed to agency discretion by law.
- Although 12 U.S.C. §§ 26–27 grant the Comptroller broad authority in national bank chartering decisions, that authority is not unlimited; courts may review whether the Comptroller acted within statutory bounds and under the APA’s standards.
- Under the standing framework reflected in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp, a plaintiff must allege injury in fact and an interest arguably within the zone of interests of the relevant statute.
- Disappointed charter applicants can show injury in fact by alleging economic harm from being denied entry into the national banking business, and their interest in organizing a national bank is at least arguably within the zone of interests regulated by the National Bank Act.
- The scope of review of a charter denial is narrow; courts do not reweigh banking policy judgments and will require clear and convincing proof of arbitrary or unlawful action before granting relief.

## Conclusion

Klanke v. Camp held that the Comptroller’s denial of a national bank charter is not immune from judicial scrutiny: the district court had jurisdiction under the APA to review the denial, and the applicants had standing based on alleged economic injury and statutory interests tied to the National Bank Act, though any review would be highly deferential and require strong proof of arbitrariness or illegality.


Klanke v. Camp, 320 F. Supp. 1185 (1970)