Whether the Court should grant, vacate, and remand with instructions to the Fifth Circuit to identify any alleged substantial pecuniary interest held by an industry participant

This Court’s cases regarding industry participants on State regulatory boards make it “sufficiently clear” that “those with substantial pecuniary interest in legal proceedings should not adjudicate these disputes.” Gibson v. Berryhill , 411 U.S. 564, 578 (1973). At the same time, however, an industry participant’s mere status as a competitor vis-à-vis a regulated party does not constitute a due process problem. Friedman v. Rogers , 440 U.S. 1, 18 & n.19 (1979). In the decision below (joined by only the authoring judge), the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a due process claim without identifying the requisite substantial pecuniary interest allegedly held by an industry participant. The question presented is: Whether the Court should grant, vacate, and remand with instructions to the Fifth Circuit to identify any alleged substantial pecuniary interest held by an industry participant.