Calcutt v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

“[…] If the record before the agency does not support the agency action, [or] if the agency has not considered all relevant factors, … the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.” 598 U.S. 623, 628.

Petitioner filed for Writ of Certiorari to review the Sixth Circuit’s denial of his petition. Respondent brought enforcement action against Petitioner as a result of an investigation into Petitioner’s activities as CEO of a Michigan-based bank. Respondent fined and barred Petitioner from continuing to work in the banking sector. As a result of this final decision by Respondent, Petitioner petitioned the Sixth Circuit for judicial review, which denied the petition despite finding that Respondent made errors in supporting its final decision. “[…] If the record before the agency does not support the agency action, [or] if the agency has not considered all relevant factors, … the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.” 598 U.S. 623, 628. The Court held that the Sixth Circuit should have remanded the case after finding errors to Respondent due to the severe nature of the penalty imposed and the use of "discretionary judgment" by Respondent in enforcement. The Court reasoned that unlike a narrow exception of cases where an agency is required to impose certain penalties, Respondent was not required to fine and bar Petitioner from banking. The Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Sixth Circuit.