The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insures deposit accounts of banks and is authorized by federal law to suspend from office an indicted official of a federally insured bank if his continued service poses a threat to the interests of the bank's depositors or threatens to impair public confidence in the bank.

By federal law the suspended official is also entitled to a hearing before the FDIC within 30 days of his written request, and to a final decision within 60 days of the hearing. At the hearing, the official may "submit written materials (or, at the discretion of the agency, oral testimony)."

Joe Slick, President of Auto State Bank, a federally insured bank, was indicted for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and making false statements in violation of state law. The FDIC suspended Slick after he was indicted. A hearing was scheduled to occur 19 days after his written request for an expedited hearing, but the FDIC's regional counsel took the position that the oral testimony Slick proposed to offer at the hearing would not be necessary. Before the hearing date, Slick filed suit in the Federal District Court, which preliminarily enjoined the FDIC from enforcing the suspension order. Although it rejected the argument that the order was invalid because it was not preceded by a hearing, the court concluded that the post-suspension procedure (for the hearing) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it does not guarantee a suspended officer a sufficiently prompt decision or an unqualified right to present oral testimony.

The FDIC appealed the District Courts decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. If you were a Justice on the Court, how would you decide on the appeal? Give your reasoning in detail. Was the FDIC's regional counsel justified in denying oral testimony as "not....[being] necessary"? Why?