Calcutt v. FDIC
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Calcutt v. FDIC and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Calcutt v. FDIC.
The Supreme Court reviewed the Sixth Circuit's affirmation of FDIC sanctions against a former bank CEO, Harry C. Calcutt III, for mismanaging loan relationships. The Court found that the Sixth Circuit erred by affirming the FDIC's decision on different legal grounds than those used by the agency. The case was remanded to the FDIC for reconsideration consistent with the Court's opinion.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Calcutt v. FDIC.
The Court held that the Sixth Circuit violated administrative law principles by affirming the FDIC's sanctions based on a different rationale than the agency's original decision.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Calcutt v. FDIC. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Calcutt v. FDIC
The case centers on the proper application of administrative law principles, specifically the requirement that courts review agency actions based on the grounds invoked by the agency itself.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: By affirming the FDIC's sanctions against petitioner based on a legal rationale different from the one adopted by the FDIC, the Sixth Circuit violated the 'fundamental rule of administrative law' that reviewing courts 'must judge the propriety of [agency] action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency.'
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Calcutt v. FDIC
The Court's decision emphasizes the role of judicial review in ensuring that agency decisions are evaluated based on the agency's own reasoning.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)It is 'a simple but fundamental rule of administrative law' that reviewing courts 'must judge the propriety of [agency] action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency.'
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Calcutt v. FDIC
The case involves the procedural requirement that agencies must follow their own prescribed processes and that courts must ensure these processes are adhered to.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The proper course for the Sixth Circuit after finding that the Board had erred was to remand the matter back to the FDIC for further consideration of petitioner's case.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Calcutt v. FDIC that support the summary and concepts above.
The Sixth Circuit violated the 'fundamental rule of administrative law' that reviewing courts 'must judge the propriety of [agency] action solely by the grounds invoked by the agency.'
The proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted limited to the first question presented.
