Case: 24-2355, 05/22/2026, DktEntry: 88.1, Page 1 of 2
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
4 25 L E X I N G T O N A V E N U E
N E W Y O R K , N Y 100 17 - 39 54
T E L E P H O N E : + 1- 21 2- 4 55- 2000
F A C S I M I L E : + 1- 21 2- 4 55- 2 502
Dir ect Di al N um ber E- mail A ddr es s
+1 - 21 2- 455- 35 39 jyoung w ood @ stbl aw. com
VIA ECF May 22, 2026
Molly C. Dwyer
Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse
95 Seventh Street
San Francisco, California 94103
Re: PayServices Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 9th Cir. No. 24-
2355
Dear Ms. Dwyer:
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), I write respectfully on behalf
of Defendant-Appellee the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco to apprise the Court of the
Tenth Circuit’s decision in Custodia Bank, Inc. v. Fed. Rsrv. Bd. of Governors, 157 F.4th 1235
(10th Cir. 2025) (“Custodia”) and the Second Circuit’s decision in Banco San Juan
Internacional, Inc. v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of New York, 2026 WL 1328199 (2d Cir. May 13, 2026)
(“BSJI”).
Like the district court here, the Tenth Circuit1 held in Custodia that 12 U.S.C. § 342
grants Federal Reserve Banks discretionary authority over master account access. 157 F.4th
at 1255. In BSJI, the Second Circuit similarly held that the appellant did not have a “statutory
entitlement to a master account” under the FRA because § 342 confers to Reserve Banks
discretionary authority over master account access. 2026 WL 1328199, at *1, *9. Both circuit
courts rejected the argument that § 248a(c)(2) overrides this discretion and creates an
entitlement to a master account. Id. at *9; Custodia, 157 F.4th at 1242.
In BSJI, the Second Circuit further held that appellant’s Mandamus Act and Due
Process claims failed because, like PayServices Bank’s claims here, they depended on the
presence of a nondiscretionary obligation to provide a master account that does not exist. 2026
WL 1328199, at *13. The Tenth Circuit similarly upheld the dismissal of the Mandamus Act
claim in Custodia because the appellant was not statutorily entitled to a master account. 157
F.4th at 1262. Without deciding whether the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“FRBNY”)
is an agency for purposes of review under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), the
Second Circuit held in BSJI that appellant’s APA claim failed regardless because FRBNY’s
termination of its master account was “‘committed to [its] discretion by law’ and therefore not
subject to judicial review.” Id. at *15.
1
Judge Tymkovich filed a dissent.
BEIJING BRUSSELS HONG KONG HOUSTON LONDON LOS ANGELES PALO ALTO SÃO PAULO TOKYO WASHINGTON, D.C.
Case: 24-2355, 05/22/2026, DktEntry: 88.1, Page 2 of 2
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
-2-
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jonathan K. Youngwood
Jonathan K. Youngwood
cc: All Counsel of Record via ECF.