federal constitutional guarantees.” ... Even if the Board could not declare a Rule of Professional Conduct unconstitutional ... [t]he Board could ... refuse to enforce it or, perhaps, narrowly construe it. We are not convinced, therefore, that Fieger is unable to raise his constitutional claims in the disciplinary proceedings. Id. (quoting Middlesex County, 457 U.S. at 435, 102 S.Ct. 2515). The court also rejected the attorney's second contention, noting instead that "the ability to raise constitutional issues before the Board as well as an opportunity to raise them again in a petition for leave to appeal satisfies the third requirement for Younger abstention." Id. 91 S.Ct. at 749; see also Hirsh v. Justices of Supreme Court of California, 67 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir.1995) (per cu-riam) (<HOLDING>); Beltran v. California, 871 F.2d 777, 781, 783
holding that statutes restricting judicial review of discretionary decisions do not preclude review of challenges to the constitutionality of ins regulations but holding that petitioners failure to receive discretionary relief does not rise to a constitutionally protected interest holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record holding that judicial review under apa standards is alone sufficient to preclude a bivens action holding that the delegation of discretionary authority to supervisors for discipline and promotion constituted a policy or practice sufficient to satisfy the commonality requirement holding that availability of discretionary judicial review is sufficient to satisfy third younger requirement