for the Secretary to file an enforcement action. Violating the order in the hopes of receiving due process protections would require BCI to subject itself to exemplary damages and attorneys’ fees. Id. Due process cannot be conditioned on requiring BCI to violate an order, exposing itself to statutory sanctions. Cf. Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974) (“[I]t is not necessary that petitioner first expose himself to actual arrest or prosecution to be entitled to challenge a statute that he claims deters the exercise of his constitutional rights.”). Therefore, the fact that the DOE can enlist the district court to enforce its order only if BCI chooses to violate the order cannot be sufficient due process. Cf. Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 269, 90 S.Ct. 1011 (<HOLDING>). Second, the DOE argues that BCI receives
holding that due process requires notice and an opportunity to respond before imposition of rule 11 sanctions recognizing right to cause of action as property right under navajo due process recognizing defendants right to confront witnesses with adequate crossexamination holding due process requires an opportunity to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses where the evidence supporting an administrative action that injures an individuals property right consists of testimony of individuals holding that the fourth amendment requires that a defendant be allowed an opportunity to challenge the veracity of an affidavit supporting a search warrant