The one legal right attached to a branch is the right to advance notice before it closes, and it is set out at 12 USC 1831r-1. The section imposes three separate duties, and the clocks are different.
To the regulator. An insured depository institution proposing to close a branch "shall submit a notice of the proposed closing to the appropriate Federal banking agency not later than the first day of the 90-day period ending on the date proposed for the closing." The notice must include "a detailed statement of the reasons for the decision to close the branch" and "statistical or other information in support of such reasons," so the institution has to say why, in writing, to its supervisor.
Posted at the branch. Notice must be posted "in a conspicuous manner on the premises of the branch proposed to be closed during not less than the 30-day period ending on the date proposed for that closing."
To customers in writing. Notice must be included in "at least one of any regular account statements mailed to customers of the branch" or in a separate mailing, "by not later than the beginning of the 90-day period ending on the date proposed for that closing." So the written notice and the regulator's notice run on the same 90-day clock, and only the sign in the window runs on the shorter one.
The institution must also "adopt policies for closings of branches," which makes the decision a governed process rather than an ad hoc one.
Low- and moderate-income areas get a hearing, and expressly not a veto. Where an interstate bank proposes to close a branch in a low- or moderate-income area, the customer notice must carry the banking agency's mailing address and a statement that comments on the closing may be mailed there. If a person from that area submits a written request with "a statement of specific reasons for the request, including a discussion of the adverse effect of such closing on the availability of banking services in the area," and the agency concludes the request is not frivolous, the agency "shall consult with community leaders in the affected area and convene a meeting" with its own representatives, other regulators, community leaders and other institutions, "to explore the feasibility of obtaining adequate alternative facilities and services." The statute defines a low- or moderate-income area as a census tract whose median family income is less than 80 percent of the median for its metropolitan statistical area, or for the state where the tract is outside one.
Then comes the sentence that decides what the process is worth. Subsection (d)(3) provides that no action by the agency under that paragraph "shall affect the authority of an interstate bank to close a branch (including the timing of such closing)" where the notice requirements have been met. The right is to be consulted, not to keep the branch.
Three exclusions the section carves out, which is where a reader who believes they are owed notice most often finds they are not. It does not apply to an automated teller machine. It does not apply to "the relocation of a branch or consolidation of one or more branches into another branch" where that "occurs within the immediate neighborhood" and "does not substantially affect the nature of the business or customers served." And it does not apply to a branch closed in connection with an emergency acquisition or with assistance provided by the FDIC. So a branch that moves down the street, or is merged into a nearby one, can go without the 90-day process.
What a branch does that an app cannot, stated without nostalgia. Physical currency and coin have to be handed to somebody. Safe deposit boxes are physical. Many banks provide notarization and, where they offer it, a medallion signature guarantee, which some securities transfers require and which cannot be obtained remotely. And identity problems, a mismatched name, a disputed signature, an estate matter, are resolved faster in person than through a support queue. None of that is an argument that branches are better; it is a list of the transactions for which a branch is the only channel.
The direction of travel, dated. The Treasury's November 2022 report on new entrant non-bank firms traces the arc from FDIC data: the number of branches "consistently increased from 3,000 in 1934 to almost 70,000 at the end of the century," continued "to approximately 85,000 by 2009," and then, "coinciding with the digitalization of banking services, branch growth in the aggregate has halted, and the number of branches has started to decline, with the number of branches now fewer than 73,000." Those figures are as of that report and should be treated as of it; the current count is published by the FDIC rather than here.