502us1$$5Z 08-21-96 15:22:10 PAGES OPINPGT
Cite as: 502 U. S. 32 (1991)
33
Syllabus provision, 11 U. S. C. § 362. The Board’s planned actions against MCorp fall squarely within § 362(b)(4), which expressly provides that the automatic stay will not reach proceedings to enforce a “governmental unit’s police or regulatory power.” MCorp is not protected by §§ 362(a)(3) and 362(a)(6)—which stay “any act” to obtain possession of, or to exercise control over, property of the estate, or to recover claims against the debtor that arose prior to the filing of a bankruptcy petition—because such provisions do not have any application to ongoing, nonfinal administrative proceedings such as those at issue here. Moreover, MCorp’s reliance on 28 U. S. C. § 1334(b)—which authorizes district courts to exercise concurrent jurisdiction over certain bankruptcy-related civil proceedings that would otherwise be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of another “court”—is misplaced, since the Board is not another “court,” and since the prosecution of the Board’s proceedings, prior to the entry of a final order and the commencement of any enforcement action, seems unlikely to impair the Bankruptcy Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the property of the estate protected by § 1334(d). Pp. 37–42. (b) The Court of Appeals erred in interpreting Kyne to authorize judicial review of the source of strength regulation. In contrast to the situation in Kyne, FISA, in § 1818(h)(2), expressly provides MCorp with a meaningful and adequate opportunity for review of the regulation’s validity and application if and when the Board finds that MCorp has violated the regulation and, in § 1818(i)(1), clearly and directly demonstrates a congressional intent to preclude review. In such circumstances, the District Court is without jurisdiction to review and enjoin the Board’s ongoing administrative proceedings. Pp. 42–45. 900 F. 2d 852: No. 90–913, reversed; No. 90–914, affirmed. Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except Thomas, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases.
Jeffrey P. Minear argued the cause for petitioner in No. 90–913 and respondent in No. 90–914. On the briefs were Solicitor General Starr, Assistant Attorney General Gerson, Deputy Solicitor General Roberts, Michael R. Lazerwitz, Anthony J. Steinmeyer, and James V. Mattingly, Jr. Alan B. Miller argued the cause for respondents in No. 90–913 and petitioners in No. 90–914. With him on the briefs were Harvey R. Miller, Steven Alan Reiss, John D.
