remanding to district court to dismiss complaint as unripe because informal agency letter was tentative “to the effect that [the agency] would not now take any action if [the bank acted on its proposal], although [the agency] might take a different view of [the proposal’s] compatibility with the Glass-Steagall Act at some point in the future after there has been some experience with [the proposal’s] actual operation”
How later courts described this case
- remanding to district court to dismiss complaint as unripe because informal agency letter was tentative “to the effect that [the agency] would not now take any action if [the bank acted on its proposal], although [the agency] might take a different view of [the proposal’s] compatibility with the Glass-Steagall Act at some point in the future after there has been some experience with [the proposal’s] actual operation”
- finding informal advisory letter from Comptroller’s office not ripe for review
- declining to find Abbott’s hardship requirement met where informal agency action had no immediate effect on the parties invoking the court’s jurisdiction
- informal opinion letter held not ripe for review where the letter expressly reserved the possibility that agency's view might change if agency were presented with certain evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
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).