Supreme Court of the United States

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Mallen

May 31, 1988486 U.S. 230

Summary

Justice Stevens delivered the unanimous opinion reversing the preliminary injunction against the FDIC’s suspension of an indicted bank officer. The Court held that protecting depositors and public confidence, together with an indictment establishing probable cause, justified suspension without a prior hearing. The statutory period allowing up to 90 days after a hearing request for a post-suspension decision was not facially unconstitutional, and the agency’s proposed procedures were not unfair in this case. Due process did not require an unconditional right to present oral testimony, particularly when the hearing officer had never been given an opportunity to decide whether to receive it. The Court also concluded that intervening events had not mooted the dispute. There were no separate opinions.

Holding

  • Whether intervening events rendered the dispute moot.. The dispute remained live despite Mallen’s convictions, the separate suspension under § 1829, and the bank’s receivership.
  • Whether suspension without a pre-suspension hearing satisfied due process.. The FDIC could suspend Mallen without first providing a hearing.
  • Whether the statutory timetable for a post-suspension decision violated due process.. The allowance of up to 90 days after a hearing request for a post-suspension decision was not facially unconstitutional, and the contemplated proceedings did not deny Mallen sufficiently prompt process.
  • Whether the absence of an unconditional statutory right to present oral testimony violated due process.. The statute was not unconstitutional because it left receipt of oral testimony to agency discretion, and Mallen had not established an unconstitutional denial of testimony.

Docket 87-82

Cited authorities

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF