Opinion ID: $opinion_id
Heading Depth: 1.0
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: $label

Text: For these reasons, a district court’s decision to enforce an EEOC subpoena should be reviewed for abuse of discretion, not de novo.

The United States also argues that the judgment below can be affirmed because it is clear that the District Court abused its discretion. But “we are a court of review, not of first view,” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005), and the Court of Appeals has not had the chance to review the District Court’s decision under the appropriate standard. That task is for the Court of Appeals in the first instance. As part of its analysis, the Court of Appeals may also consider, as and to the extent it deems appropriate, any arguments made by McLane regarding the burdens imposed by the subpoena.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is hereby vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.