May 14—TRAVERSE CITY — A local banker appealing a steep fine and a lifetime ban from the banking industry for what federal regulators called commercial loan misconduct, has secured support for his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court from a variety of national organizations.

In September, Harry C. Calcutt, former president and chief executive officer of Northwestern Bank, was granted a temporary stay order signed by Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

The $125,000 fine and the ban — currently paused by that stay order — were levied against Calcutt more than a decade ago, following a 2012 investigation by examiners with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. into his handling of $38 million in commercial loans the bank made to a holding company, Nielson Entities.

Nielson Entities, court records show, was a group of 19 limited liability companies with assets in oil and gas, vacant land acquisition, rental properties and real estate development controlled by members of the Nielson family.

FDIC examiners said, as the U.S. was sinking into a recession and the Nielson loans became past due in 2009, Calcutt and two Northwestern colleagues concealed this status from the bank's board of directors and from state and federal investigators.

Richard Jackson, a former Northwestern executive vice-president, and William Green, a former Northwestern commercial loan officer, also were cited by the FDIC for their actions on the Nielson loans, but did not appeal, records show.

Calcutt, however, denied the allegations, previously testified in FDIC hearings that he'd made decisions based on what he believed was best for the bank, and appealed through the federal court system.

The relief Calcutt is now seeking from the U.S. Supreme Court focuses not wholly on the specifics of the fine or the ban, but rather on constitutional questions about a little-known aspect of the federal judiciary — administrative law judges — and the power they wield.

One of his Calcutt's attorneys, Mark Hullman of Traverse City, passed away earlier this year. He'd previously described two aspects of his client's ongoing appeals.

"One is the constitutional issues as related to the removal power of the agency and the administrative law judge," Hullman had said in November. "The problem here is, the administrative law judge is protected by about four or five layers of bureaucracy, none of which has the power to directly remove him."

The second issue, Hullman said, was that Calcutt's due process rights had been denied during the FDIC hearing when an administrative law judge did not allow FDIC witnesses to be cross-examined.

This was contrary to federal rules and procedures, Hullman said.

In subsequent court filings it appears a number of prominent advocacy organizations agree with this assessment.

"The deck is often already stacked in favor of the regulator in administrative proceedings, and the court of appeals' approach would only exacerbate that problem," attorneys for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stated in a March 3 brief filed in support of Calcutt's position.

Additional U.S. Supreme Court filings between Feb. 24 and March 3 show amicus briefs in Harry C. Calcutt v. FDIC were also submitted in support by Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Washington Legal Foundation, Separation of Powers Clinic, The American Association of Bank Directors and the New Civil Liberties Alliance.

For now, Calcutt has so far has successfully blocked the FDIC from levying the fine or the ban and corporate filings show, as of last year, he remained in the banking industry, serving in a leadership role with Central-State Bancorp, which owns State Savings Bank.

The stay order signed by Justice Kavanaugh in September is. in effect, pending the outcome of another court filing from Calcutt — a writ of certiorari, which in layman's terms is a formal request to the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

The FDIC has argued a U.S. Supreme Court review is not warranted and the cause could simply be remanded back to the lower court.

The briefs on Thursday were distributed for conference, a court schedule shows, which is a non-public process between justices where some, but not all, cases distributed are discussed.