Calcutt v. FDIC
In brief
The Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit's judgment and sent Calcutt's case back for FDIC reconsideration (reversed and remanded); it did not decide the question about presidential removal protections.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 22, 2023 · Per curiam
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court ruled that when a federal agency makes a legal error, an appeals court must send the case back to the agency rather than reviewing the factual record itself.
- Who it affects
- The Sixth Circuit's judgment supporting the FDIC's penalties and banking restrictions no longer stands, but the Court did not finally decide whether those measures should stand.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
This decision reversed a lower court's attempt to uphold FDIC sanctions against a former bank CEO using its own legal rationale.
The decision reinforces a basic rule for reviewing federal agencies: appeals courts must use the agency's stated reasons rather than create their own factual basis for the decision.
Question presented
1. Whether, when a court of appeals identifies a legal error in an agency’s decision, the proper remedy is to remand to the agency for further proceedings, or whether the court may instead conduct its own de novo review of the record and reach its own factual findings to support the agency’s decision. 2. Whether the separation-of-powers concerns identified in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020), and Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021), require a court to vacate an agency action taken by an official who is unconstitutionally insulated from presidential removal, without a showing that the removal restriction caused the specific harm of which the party complains.
What the Court decided
Holding
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
- Majority author
- Per Curiam
What's next
The Sixth Circuit must send the matter back to the FDIC (remand it) for reconsideration. The separate question about presidential removal protections remains unresolved in this case.
Why it matters
The Sixth Circuit must send the matter to the FDIC (remand it), while the separate question about presidential removal protections remains unresolved.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Opinion added: Calcutt
Opinion added: opinion
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Court Order added: Lower Court Orders/Opinions
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court decide in Calcutt v. FDIC?
- It overturned the Sixth Circuit's judgment and sent the case back to that court (reversed and remanded). The Court said the appeals court could not replace the agency's reasoning with its own record review.
- What error did the Court find in the Sixth Circuit's review?
- The Sixth Circuit found legal errors but then reviewed the record itself and used a different rationale to support the FDIC's sanctions. The Supreme Court said it should have sent the matter back to the agency (remanded it).
- What happens next for Harry Calcutt?
- The Sixth Circuit must send the matter to the FDIC (remand it). The agency must reconsider his case under the Supreme Court's instructions.
- Did the Court decide the constitutional removal question?
- No. The Court agreed to hear only the first question, so this decision did not resolve whether removal protections required setting aside the agency action.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.