In the 1987 case Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Mallen et al, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a bank official could be suspended without a hearing if he was indicted for a felony related to his banking duties. The court held that such suspension did not violate due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution because there is an important government interest in maintaining public confidence in financial institutions and preventing fraud or other criminal activities by those entrusted with managing these institutions. Furthermore, it was found reasonable to suspend an official upon indictment since this constitutes probable cause to believe they have committed a crime, which can justify immediate action before final adjudication occurs.

In the dissenting opinion for the case Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Mallen et al, 1987, it was argued that due process rights were violated when an indicted bank officer was suspended without a hearing. The dissenting justices believed that while protecting public interest is important, this should not be done at the expense of individual rights. They contended that there are other ways to protect public interests without infringing on personal liberties such as through bond requirements or restraining orders against certain actions by indicted officers. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's interpretation of 'extraordinary situations' which allowed suspension before a hearing and suggested instead that these should only apply in cases where immediate harm could occur if action isn't taken promptly - something they did not believe applied in this case.