Court Opinion

ID: 9482190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:42:55.230707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:49.411095
License: Public Domain

RYMER, Circuit Judge,
with whom CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge, joins,
concurring:
I concur, but write separately to express my view that the statutory scheme provides adequate opportunity for judicial review, such that we have no need to say that an independent or judicial screen in the circumstances of this case is unnecessary.
When issued, the temporary order is only “effective,” 12 U.S.C. § 1818(c)(1) — it is not “enforceable” until ten days later when the government is entitled to an enforcement order unless the temporary order in the meantime has been set aside, limited, or suspended by a court. 12 U.S.C. § (c)(1); (c)(2); (d). The fact that the temporary order is “effective” immediately upon issuance triggers the respondent’s obligations and the statutory time limits for judicial review. Before the order becomes “enforceable” at the end of the ten-day period, the respondent has the opportunity to go in for a full judicial review of the appropriateness of the order. If the respondent fails to do this, then the court must enforce the temporary order at the government’s request, without substantive judicial review. This does not deprive a respondent such as Spiegel of due process, because he has the opportunity during the ten-day window to go into court to set *1443aside, limit, or suspend enforcement or effectiveness of the temporary order, and to full judicial review in the course of that proceeding.