# Investment Company Institute v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, an Agency of the United States

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · February 28, 1984 · 728 F.2d 518

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471837

## Case

- **Full name:** INVESTMENT COMPANY INSTITUTE v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, an Agency of the United States, Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** February 28, 1984
- **Citations:** 728 F.2d 518; 234 U.S. App. D.C. 237; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 25073
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wright
- **Judges:** Wright, Bork, Scalia
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471837

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the existence of alternative avenues for relief weighs against judicial review under the APA

## Opinion text

J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I would stay further action in this appeal until the District Court conducts contempt proceedings with respect to alleged refusals to comply with its discovery order dated May 27, 1982. See Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323 , 60 S.Ct. 540 , 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940); Alton & So. R. Co. v. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Wkrs, 463 F.2d 872, 878-880 (D.C.Cir.1972). *
I respectfully dissent.
Were I to reach the merits of this controversy, I would point out that the majority opinion fails to follow the law of this circuit when it states that exercises of agency enforcement discretion are generally unreviewable. Majority opinion at 527 & n. 7. In Chaney v. Heckler, 718 F.2d 1174 (D.C.Cir.1983), rehearing denied 724 F.2d 1030 (D.C.Cir.1984), this court rejected that position. In Chaney this court stated: “Though some courts have traditionally displayed reluctance to review exercises of enforcement discretion, the Supreme Court has consistently instructed us to construe narrowly the ‘committed to agency discretion’ exception, * * * [and] [t]his admonishment applies with no less force to review of agency enforcement discretion, including agency decisions to refrain from enforcement action. Dunlop v. Bachow-ski, supra, 421 U.S. 560 [ 95 S.Ct. 1851 , 44 L.Ed.2d 377 ].” 718 F.2d at 1184 . With respect to the majority’s efforts in footnote 7 to evade without even distinguishing the clear holding in Chaney , it must be noted that the majority has a most selective ear for “the stifled cry of smothered stare decisis.” Id. at 1198 (dissenting opinion).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9471837. Public record. Not legal advice.