Clarke v. Securities Industry Ass'n

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Administrative Law

479 U.S. 388 (1987)

Updated August 1, 2026

Administrative Lawzone of interestsAPA § 702standingreviewabilityNational Bank ActMcFadden Actbranch banking

Facts

Two national banks, Union Planters and Security Pacific, applied to the Comptroller for permission to acquire or establish discount brokerage operations offering services to the public at bank branches and at other locations inside and outside their home States. The Comptroller concluded that the nonchartered brokerage offices were not "branches" under 12 U.S.C. § 36(f) because they would not receive deposits, pay checks, or lend money there; margin loan approvals would occur at chartered bank offices, and customer credit balances in brokerage accounts were treated as different from ordinary bank deposits. The Securities Industry Association, a trade association of securities brokers, underwriters, and investment bankers, challenged the approvals. The Comptroller argued both that the association lacked standing under the McFadden Act and that the approvals were lawful.

Issue

Whether the Securities Industry Association was within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the National Bank Act so that it could seek APA review of the Comptroller's decision, and whether the Comptroller reasonably interpreted the National Bank Act's branching provisions to allow national banks to conduct discount brokerage business at nonbranch locations.

Rule

Under APA § 702, a plaintiff may obtain judicial review if it suffers injury in fact and its interest is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the relevant statutory scheme. The zone-of-interests test is not especially demanding: there need be no indication that Congress specifically meant to benefit the plaintiff, and review is denied only when the plaintiff's interests are so marginally related to or inconsistent with the statute's purposes that Congress could not reasonably be assumed to have intended the suit. On the merits, courts should give great weight to any reasonable construction of a regulatory statute adopted by the agency charged with enforcing it.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Office of Federal Banking Supervision approved a national bank's plan to offer tax-preparation kiosks inside grocery stores across Ohio. The Ohio Tax Preparers Guild, whose members compete with the bank for walk-in customers, sues under the APA, alleging the approval violates a federal banking statute designed in part to limit the spread of national bank operations.

Assuming the Guild can show Article III injury, what is the best argument that it may obtain APA review?

Explanation. Under APA § 702, the zone-of-interests test is not especially demanding. A plaintiff with injury in fact may seek review if its interest is arguably within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the relevant statutory scheme. The Court emphasized that Congress need not have specifically intended to benefit the plaintiff class, and competitor suits are allowed where the alleged injury plausibly relates to policies limiting bank activities or expansion.