Court Opinion

ID: 9464145
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:26:22.006777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:29.145966
License: Public Domain

WRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the court’s opinion. Because I believe that Judge McGowan is correct in suggesting that the appellants do have a private right of action under the GlassSteagall Act against banks using Automatic Investment Services, appellants should first be required to put the issue in more concrete form by exploring that avenue of potential relief. However, if it is ultimately held that appellants lack a private right of action, prudential concerns inhering in the “hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration”1 would, in my judgment, remove any doubt as to the ripeness of a subsequent suit by appellants against the ComptroIiSrT There should be some means to obtain review of the Comptroller’s interpretation of the statute.2

. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967).

. See Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 567, 95 S.Ct. 1851, 44 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975); Abbott Laboratories, Inc. v. Gardner, supra note 1, 387 U.S. at 139-140, 87 S.Ct. 1507; Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288, 307-308, 64 S.Ct. 559, 88 L.Ed. 733 (1944).