Document: 525 U.S. 471119 S.Ct. 936142 L.Ed.2d 940 (97-1252)119 F.3d 1367, vacated and remanded. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 97 1252 JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., PETITIONERSv.AMERICAN-ARAB ANTI-DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE al. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT [February 24, 1999] Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of Court.* 1 Respondents sued petitioners for allegedly targeting them deportation because their affiliation with a politically unpopular group. While suit was pending, Congress passed Illegal Immigration Reform Immigrant Responsibility Act 1996, 110 Stat. 3009 546 (IIRIRA), which contains provision restricting judicial review Attorney General's "decision or action" to "commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, execute removal orders against any alien under this Act." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (1994 ed., Supp. III). The issue before us is whether, as contend, deprives federal courts jurisdiction over respondents' suit.I 2 Naturalization Service (INS), division Department Justice, instituted proceedings in 1987 Bashar Amer, Aiad Barakat, Julie Mungai, Amjad Obeid, Ayman Naim Sharif, Khader Hamide, Michel Shehadeh, all whom belong Popular Front Liberation Palestine (PFLP), group that Government characterizes an international terrorist communist organization. INS charged eight McCarran-Walter Act, which, though now repealed, provided at time aliens who "advocate world communism." See 1251(a)(6)(D), (G)(v), (H) (1982 ed.). In addition, first six, were only temporary residents, routine status violations such overstaying visa failure maintain student status.1 1251(a)(2) (a)(9) (1988 3 Almost immediately, filed District Court, challenging constitutionality anti-communism provisions seeking declaratory injunctive relief General, INS, various immigration officials personal official capacities. responded by dropping advocacy-of-communism charges, but it retained technical violation charges six residents Hamide permanent different section authorized members organization advocating "the duty, necessity, propriety unlawful assaulting killing [government] officer officers" damage, injury, destruction property." 1251(a)(6)(F)(ii) (iii) ed.).2 regional counsel William Odencrantz said press conference had been changed tactical reasons still PFLP. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Reno, 70 1045, 1053 (CA9 1995). amended complaint include allegation selectively enforcing laws First Fifth Amendment rights.3 4 Since prevent initiation 1987, during administration General Edwin Meese has made four trips through Court Central California United States Appeals Ninth Circuit. two concerned jurisdictional issues not us. 87 7249 (CA9, Feb. 1988); Thornburgh, 970 F.2d 501 1991). Then, 1994, preliminarily enjoined holding they likely prove did enforce requirements immigrants disfavored groups possibility deportation, combined chill rights while constituted irreparable injury. With regard Shehadeh's claims, however, granted summary judgment parties pertinent here. 5 1045 1995), case we shall call "AADC I" Circuit's merits determination case, upholding injunction reversing Shehadeh. rejected argument selective-enforcement claims are inappropriate context, her alternative special statutory-review Nationality (INA), 1105a precluded claim until order issued. F.3d, 1056 1057. Circuit remanded entered favor Shehadeh denied request existing be dissolved light new evidence respondents participated fundraising activities 6 appeal last decision IIRIRA inter alia, repealed old judicial-review scheme set forth §1105a (and significantly more restrictive) one §1252. motions both Appeals, arguing §1252(g) deprived claim. motion, from denial consolidated already pending 7 It here: 119 1367 1997), II." affirmed existence §1252, see id., 1374, reaching injunctions, again 1374 1376. petition rehearing en banc dissent three judges, 132 531 1997). sought our review, certiorari, 524 ___ (1998). II Before enactment IIRIRA, most administrative action INA governed directing sole exclusive procedure final deportation" Hobbs 28 2341 seq., gives appeals, §2342. Much Appeals' analysis AADC I devoted question whether pre-IIRIRA applied claims. neither Judge nor Board authority hear (a point conceded I, 1055), challenge based upon would arrive court appeals without factual development necessary decision. argued unsuccessfully below permits remand agency, 2347(c) transfer district court, §2347(b)(3) further factfinding. Circuit, believing these options unavailable, concluded original district-court means obtaining thus Relying on Cheng Fan Kwok 392 206 (1968), held could entertain either its general federal-question jurisdiction, 1331 INA, 1329.4 9 Whether must delve into details depends after continues apply case. On surface things, least, does not. Although rule §309(c)(1) revised procedures removing aliens, including do exclusion IIRIRA's effective date, note following 1101 III),5 §306(c)(1) directs single provision, §1252(g), "without limitation arising past, future exclusion, proceedings." Section reads follows: 10 "(g) Exclusive Jurisdiction 11 Except notwithstanding other law, no have cause behalf commence 12 This seemingly governs here, depriving "[e]xcept section." But straightforward scope quoted text. Here, below, treated covering nearly characterized "a channeling requiring bring deportation-related context appeals." Supplemental Brief Appellants 96 55929 (CA9), p. 2. described applying "most what does." Corrected Appellees 7. broad understanding effective-date provisions, creates interpretive anomaly. If jurisdiction-excluding eliminates sources if phrase section" incorporates (as suppose) jurisdiction-related then rendered virtual nullity. To say there cases "except as" §1252 provides simply §1252's limitations well seems hardly about. If, hand, (somehow) interpreted incorporate stood alone, so speak foreclosed even entry order. 13 avoid horns dilemma interpreting §1252(g)'s mean §1105a." Because authorizes orders, must, she says, wait come close seek appeals. (For mentioned above, course rejects position application leave forum selective prosecution cannot introduced record.) obvious difficulty interpretation impossible understand how qualifier (emphasis added), can possibly And indeed makes attempt explain be, except observe calls "literal application" statute "would create anomalous result." Petitioners 30, n. 15. 14 deficiency, offer equally implausible avoiding dilemma. 309(c)(3) allows terminate reinitiate §1252.6 They argue applies those election. That way, claim, can, producing result, allowed refer says) rest approach collides head-on §306(c)'s prescription III) added). (Respondents alternative, course, right apply, correct will effectively unreviewable For reason, habeas available IIRIRA,7 too late remedy contend construe bar constitutional claims.) 15 part, accepted parties' reading concluded, reasonably enough, meant stand alone: "Divorced subsection (g) sweeping impact statute's than date. Without incorporating exceptions, appears cut off decisions. We think intended absurd 1372. 16 recognized, horn ("that retroactive entire version threaten render meaningless 306(c) IIRIRA," ibid.), resolved satisfaction concluding "at least some 1252" included "when cases." Ibid. One thought, (f), entitled "Limit Injunctive Relief," 17 "Regardless nature identity party bringing action, (other Supreme Court) enjoin restrain operation chapter title II, [IIRIRA], respect individual initiated." found affirmative grant covered present limited inapplicable case) §1252(b)(9), provides: 18 "Judicial questions law fact, statutory taken proceeding brought remove replied that, §1252(b)(9) incorporated transitional preclude same reason namely, lack access findings regarding enforcement. 19 Even scarcely try defend §1252(f) grant. By plain terms, title, nothing less limit relief. prohibits granting classwide §§1221 1231, specifies ban extend cases. find go beyond language bear. 20 seeming anomaly prompted strained readings accompanied mirage. acrobatics flow belief read envision portion since produce restrictions identical contained anyway. belief, rests unexamined assumption covers universe sort "zipper" clause says "no unless review." much narrower. discrete actions may take: orders." (Emphasis added.) There many decisions part process open investigation, surveil suspected violator, reschedule hearing, product adjudication, refuse reconsideration 21 mention events along road shorthand way referring proceedings. Not unpoetic use synecdoche, literary device incompatible need precision legislative drafting. aware instance Code used impose limitation; enacted familiar normal manner imposing demonstrated text stands stark contrast §1252(g). 22 argued, perhaps, redundant channels actions, so, (except extent within §1252(g)), 309(c)(1) "transitional cases," is, date IIRIRA. alone justifies existence. performs function categorically excluding non-final-order otherwise rather unmistakable certain specified INS. system, interpret serves continuing making clear discuss detail below) prohibition §1105a, §1252(b)(9). renders entirely redundant, adding another equal inexplicable why §306(c) instead exists all. 23 good focus attention upon, make for, acts "commenc[ing] adjudicat[ing] [and] execut[ing] orders" represent stages process. At each stage Executive discretion abandon endeavor, engaging regular practice (which known "deferred action") exercising humanitarian own convenience.8 As treatise describes it: 24 "To ameliorate harsh unjust outcome, decline institute deportation. commendable exercise discretion, developed express authorization, originally nonpriority designated deferred action. A selected treatment Approval thereafter proceed apparently deportable alien, grounds normally regarded aggravated." C. Gordon, S. Mailman, & Yale-Loehr, Law Procedure §72.03[2][h] also Johns 653 884, 890 892 (CA5 1981). generous act goes unpunished, INS's opened door litigation instances where chose it. "[I]n instance, withhold confined discretion. . Efforts refusal specific sometimes favorably considered courts, contentions protection due process, improper reliance political considerations, racial, religious, nationality discriminations, arbitrary unconstitutional criteria, constituting abuse discretion." supra, §72.03[2][a] (footnotes omitted). 25 Such possible §1105a's leading up consequent relied statutes permit review. See, e.g., (1968) (review stay deportation); Ramallo Civ. 95 01851 (D.D.C., July 23, 1996) execution order), rev'd grounds, 114 1210 (CADC 1997); 1995) commencement proceedings); Lennon 527 187, 195 (CA2 1975) (same, dicta). clearly designed give measure similar discretionary determinations, providing reviewable all, bases separate rounds intervention outside streamlined designed.9 26 Of aimed protecting Executive's indeed, fairly theme legislation. 1252(a)(2)(A) (limiting inspection arriving States); §1252(a)(2)(B) (barring denials provisions); §1252(a)(2)(C) criminal aliens); §1252(b)(4)(D) asylum determinations resident aliens). understandable, want discretion-protecting cases: specifically directed deconstruction, fragmentation, hence prolongation 27 Our narrow sense whole, resolves supposed tension between §309(c)(1). applies, clause. incorporation swallow §309(c)(1)'s §§1252(a) (f ) subset Yet faithful §306(c)(1)'s command limitation" (i.e., provided" clause) "claims Respondents' proceedings" falls squarely discussed, crafted precisely mind elsewhere jurisdiction. Cf. §1252(a)(1)(review orders); §1252(e)(2) (limited excluded (e)(3)(A) regulations pertaining earlier, plainly III 29 Finally, address contention prior §1252(a)(1) exception unavailing; unavailable; "chilling effect" rights; doctrine doubt requires fashion immediate believe matter assuredly put forward unlawfully country assert enforcement defense his deportation.10 30 criminal-law field, rara avis. invade province prosecutorial emphasized standard proving particularly demanding, defendant introduce "clear evidence" displacing presumption prosecutor acted lawfully. Armstrong, 517 456, 463 465 (1996). said: 31 "This [afforded Executive] largely recognition prosecute ill-suited factors strength prosecution's deterrence value, Government's priorities, case's relationship overall plan readily susceptible kind competent undertake. Judicial supervision area, moreover, entails systemic costs particular concern. Examining basis delays proceeding, threatens subjecting prosecutor's motives decisionmaking inquiry, undermine effectiveness revealing policy. All substantial concerns properly hesitant examine prosecute." Wayte States, 470 598, 607 608 (1985). 32 These greatly magnified context. Regarding, example, potential delay: Whereas consequence delay merely postpone criminal's receipt just deserts, prolong law. Postponing justifiable (in hope alien's change by, marriage American citizen object extending stay) often principal resistance additional obstacle suits hard pressed requirements. "chill[ing] inquiry": What involved disclosure domestic law-enforcement priorities techniques, foreign-policy objectives foreign-intelligence products techniques. should disclose "real" deeming nationals threat wishing antagonize foreign focusing country's ill equipped determine authenticity utterly unable assess adequacy. Moreover, consideration side ledger interest target "selective" compelling prosecutions. consequences grave, imposed punishment, Carlson Landon, 342 524, 537 (1952). (for here) permitted residence expired, activity completed. when committed, principle being punished (criminal purpose) terms he admitted. end ongoing continue improperly powerfully appealing. 33 resolve controversy, out rare alleged discrimination outrageous foregoing considerations overcome. certainly When presence laws, offend Constitution deporting him believes member supports activity. 34 * 35 vacate instructions Court. 36 ordered. 37 *. *Justice Breyer joins Parts opinion. Notes 38 1. Barakat Sharif subsequently legalization longer violations. 11, 5. 39 "terrorist activity" added 1990. 1227(a)(4)(B) this, unclear addition to, substitution charges. 40 3. styled "damages relief," monetary requested "costs attorneys fees." App. 20, 51. 41 4. latter States. 1329 42 "(c) Transition Aliens Proceedings "(1) Rule New Rules Do Apply. Subject succeeding [§309(a) carves exception], "(A) amendments subtitle "(B) (including thereof) conducted amendments." 625. 43 6. exercised option Court's prevents doing so. 41, 38. 44 disagreement Courts Appeals. Compare Hose 141 932, 935 (CA9) (habeas available), withdrawn reh'g granted, 161 1225 (1998), Richardson 162 1338 (CA11 1998) (same), Yang 109 1185, 1195 (CA7 1997) Goncalves 144 110, 122 (CA1 Henderson 157 106, 117 (same). Magana-Pizano 152 1213, 1220 (elimination unconstitutional); 1210, 1214 (§1252(g) removes leaves "constitutional" intact). 45 8. Prior 1997, deferred-action internal guidelines considered, likelihood ultimately sympathetic adversely affect generate bad publicity violated given high priority. §242.1 rescinded June 27, indication ceased case-by-case basis. ibid. 46 9. history explains Souter ought "hard imagine them, challenge, say, investigation show order." Post, challenges know involving investigation" perhaps rarely public. order" (though might mere specification covers). evil: attempts constraints tax imagination focuses occurred. event, posed written small price pay escaping overwhelming difficulties Souter's theory. He effort broad, catchall throw-in-the-towel §306(c)(1), finds diffi- cult explain, post, 9, strains ruptures faculty reason. "parses [§1252(g)] finely," 5; did, modest fault preferable novel power nullification. Stevens, like Souter, explicit steps invokes conflict expansive justification uses word "section," "can't says," Green Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 504, 511 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted) empowering declare "scrivenor's error" "section" "Act." Stevens' approach, Souter's, problem solved conventional solution: say. 47 10. Instead resolving question, Ginsburg chooses exclude remedying effects, completion easier answer evident fact relies almost exclusively dealing quite federal-court state (Even cites intervene injury none admission selecting individuals adverse Dombrowski Pfister, 380 479, 487 488, (1965).) federal-state relations overrode congressional requirement though, unlike harm apparent. Oestereich Selective Serv. System Local Bd. 393 233 (1968). counts characterization agency "blatantly lawless," 238. Nor addresses narrower effect resolve. generally prosecution. Hers citizens (at deprivation lawless") acknowledges conclusion reviewing consider claims." never establishes expresses "confiden[ce]" (despite contrary) outcome. 5, How well-founded confidence assessed considering based, counsel's assurance oral adhere ." primarily rely concession "[w]hen hearing." 2347(b). agency's hearing addressed issue" especially situation §2347(c) (providing circumstances), explicitly U. Petitioners' cast hold "required law" assert, remand, §2347(b)(1). petitioners' promise quibble raised sua sponte. possible, therefore, Ginsburg's accomplish (upon termination proceedings) narrower) once. > 48 Opinion Ginsburg, J. 49 PETITIONERS AMERICAN-ARAB 50 51 52 Part concurring judgment. 53 agree pre-final-order suit. Under obtain circuit pursuant seq. ed. II). 1252(a)(1) prejudge objection pursue suffices inquire necessitates plea. conclude 54 suffering therefore require instant previously determined circumstances addressing injunctions stop secure rights. feature 479 (1965), Younger Harris, 401 37, (1971). Those provide helpful framework. 55 Younger, declared restraint prosecutions permissible "great immediate" "that incidental every lawfully faith." S., 46, chilling effect, cautioned, "by itself justify intervention." Id., 50. prospect extraordinary obtained. referred, initially, faith, harassing police pursued "any expectation securing valid convictions." omitted).1 Further, observed "extraordinary shown absence usual prerequisites faith harassment," "flagrantly patently violative prohibitions clause, sentence paragraph, whatever whomever it." 56 Oestereich, ministry student's exemption draft engaged protest. U.S., 234. induction, forward, preinduction Finding Board's raise corpus "to unnecessary harshness." 57 precedent suggests interlocutory (INS) order, bar, lawlessly, patent Resembling, stringent than, evaluation preliminary sought, see, Doran Salem Inn, Inc., 422 922, 931 (1975) ("The traditional plaintiff issuance suffer prevail merits."), test demand, essential element, demonstration strong success merits. uncertain establish likelihood. certiorari select carried Pet. Cert. 20a; 25. presents complex uncharted area rush 58 Middlesex County Ethics Comm. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 423 (1982), inability ante, necessary. explained County, abstention appropriate "an adequate opportunity challenges." 432; Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n Dayton Christian Schools, 477 619, 629 (1986) (even complainants objections sufficed aired decision). established integrated deferring point. Given Congress' phase sufficient. 59 equation different. Webster Doe, 486 592, 603 (1988) "serious arise construed deny colorable claim" omitted)). factfinding record. 60 "final order[s] removal." authorize "all matters validity contingent, actually Chadha, 462 919, 938 (1983) here record postponed. note, resolution material 44, 49, 23,2 position, Tr. Oral Arg. 6.3 61 asked objection, declined only. 30; __ full briefing plea viability generally. one. ledger," allows. 62 settled "[f]reedom speech accorded residing country." Bridges Wixon, 326 135, 148 (1945). doctrine, deliberately unjustifiable race, religion, classification, protected rights." (1985) citations am persuaded exempt prescription. decides deport "for forbidden Constitution," (1996), seem me redress turn gravity governmental sanction. Deportation, grave long "[t]hat penalty times serious doubted." Bridges, 154; (Deportation places liberty stake Though technically visits great hardship live work land freedom."); G. Neuman, Strangers Constitution: Immigrants, Borders, Fundamental (1996) ("Deportation far harsher 'punishment[s]' Uprooting home, friends, family, severe regardless returned; breaking attachments inflicts pain preventing made."). 63 *** 64 sum, demonstrate ultimate current speech, flagrantly improper, intervention. demonstration. cognizable resort forum. common episode, factfinding, judiciary's ken. 65 stated, join concur 66 Specifically, noted Dombrowski's allegations " 'threats [were] convictions, employ arrests, seizures, threats color harass appellants discourage supporters asserting attempting vindicate Negro Louisiana.' (quoting 482 (1965)). 67 facts taking sought," 2347(b), required law," §2347(b)(3). Sensitive presented complete preclusion argues "[s]ection 2347(b)(3) face deportation," filing Reply 12, 14. Federal Appellate 48's authorization masters, available. 13. finding "fashion mechanism transfer." best left confident appeals' authority. 68 exchange confirms: Counsel petitioners: [I]f entered, enforcement, fact-finding issue, existed applicable statute. "Now, mechanism, Court: "It raised, anything level? claimed violate initiated "So representation you about legal take circumstances? "That correct." J., 69 71 72 73 1996 (IIRIRA) omnibus occupies 745 pages Statutes Large. 546. surprising scrivener's error. (1989). Despite error, disposition plain. dismissed. 74 textual debated my colleagues Act. Putting moment, meaning 1252(b)(9) perfectly clear. former postpones order1 collateral proceedings.2 Thus, respondents, yet ripe attack 75 substitute "Act" introductory giving §§306(c)(1) 309(c)(1). defines attacks immediately;3 rules Act.4 remains regime. 1105a. 76 Admittedly, slight ambiguity §309 refers "case "case" arguably eventual inconsistent §306, "exclusion expressly mentions. 77 summarize, fair relevant become immediately completed commenced. 78 add explanation broadly parts not, share concerning punishment innocent persons happen terrorism. stated opinion, priority 18. Accordingly, vacated. 79 "(9) Consolidation 610. 80 Jurisdiction. 612. 81 306(c)(1) Effective Date. General. paragraph (2), subsections (a) (b) [as 309, that] 242 (a)), 82 Proceedings. apply. subsection, dissenting 83 84 85 86 dissenting. unhappy reveals Congress, unintentionally, legislation simultaneously grants denies April 1, 1997. trump mutually invoke avoids difficulty. today purports contradiction bear, respectfully dissent. 88 contradictory play 612, §2 Oct. 3657, October future" Subsection (g), bars alien," exception, cold comfort applicants took 309(c)(1)(A) 625, 3657. Hence, appear alien" short, class aspect 89 309(c)(1)(B) [new §1252]." parenthetical expression words, §309(c)(1)(B) preserve pre-existing self-same 90 dwell arose.1 purposes reconciled. Either else came effect.2 91 "interpretive anomaly," 7, creative "appl[y] take," 11. adjudication "many process," ibid., remain unaffected reading, aspects preserved, reviewed challenged include, tells us, "decisions cause, 92 interpretation, me, parses finely business hand. chronological march commencing adjudicating executing surely reasonable impression speaking exhaustively. grammatically series total inclusion, implausibility moment asks wanted interim adverts. show-cause plausible exclusivity investigations invite shown. 93 offers arguments support ingenious convince plausibility. First, words whole "is drafting." delving wisdom using rhetorical figures drafting, naturally employed subject headings conceivably brought. Indeed, examples comfortably phases captured commencement, removal. surveillance presumably differs separately mentioned); issuing composing refusing easily adjudication. Far employing familiar, acceptability items others considerable indulge reading. 94 Second, "good reason," execution, distinct habit defer practice, quotes passage descriptively 'the deportation,' (1998)). entertained efforts notes, plausibly, purpose challenges. smoking gun. notions instituting terminating declining very inclusive does. '[a] process,' 13, authors evidently exercises points "discrete" execution. subscribe incomplete, confront irreconcilable Both former. highly improbable barrier whose commenced intentionally singled hapless interim. underscored §309(c)(4)(A), (c) (but days enactment. 309(c)(4)(A), contemplates block right. Bowen Michigan Academy Family Physicians, 476 667, 681, (1986). counsels adopting raises question. "[W]here constructions, doubtful avoided, duty adopt latter." ex rel. Delaware Hudson 213 366, 408 (1909); Jin Fuey Moy, 241 394, (1916). lends weight view lightly reach essentially force, Congress's intent enacting necessarily balanced §306(c)(1). No canon construction flatly contradict another.3 are, bound glimpsing uncontradicted provision. salvage stopping place, fundamentally odds, serve guide tie. governing subsequent prevailing view, afforded litigate Former 1105a(a) "judicial deportation." fell "alien's remedies would, ordinarily lie court." 206, 210 McNary Haitian Refugee Center, 498 (1991), Service. here.4 98 troubling despite briefed vitality principle, obviates issue: barred on, dictum,5 prosecutions," 18, past crime, deleted). distinctions clear, difference shared government accused, constitutionally prescribed guaranties equality liberty. 464 (1996); degree litigation, attenuated ongoing. authorities evaders bear prejudice liberties wish curtail, nonpayers' obviate 99 theory assume lose argument. underscores danger unbriefed logic. unconvinced 100 September 1996. read, reopen Act," limitation. arrangement, issued alien. issued, nonfinal conflicted §309(c)(4). section, "Transitional Changes Review," "entered made." §309(c)(4) whereas contemplated noticed discrepancy. 4, Representative Lamar Smith Texas floor House "become apparent error provisions" 142 Cong. Rec. H12293. "[i]t conferees matter, package changes 1252] [sic] leaving law." "before courts," courts. went §309(c)(4): "The intended, accelerate implementation reforms [in §1252]. spelled 309 act. 309(c)(4) accelerated 306 reforms." proposed change, concern "there clarify ensure 309(c)(4)," amendment amendment, eliminated enactment, untouched (g). result qualified once them. Instead, lang 101 blush thought includes "notwithstanding problems notion first, rule, and, second, §309(c) (1)(A) subtitle," itself, force aliens. §309(a) announces sections, §306(c), "[s]ubject subsection," somehow §306(c). Ante, 6, "subsection" §309(c), §309(a). acknowledge later implicit repeal. alteration simultaneous primary influence "notwithstanding" beg intent. 102 situation, years ago irreconcilable, became effective, time, other, results invalid." Maddux Nashville, 158 Tenn. 307, 312, W. 2d 319, 321 (1929). invalidating enable place 103 exhaustion therein §1105a(c). McNary, waiver sovereign immunity §702, waives money damages. restricted Administrative Presbyterian Church (U.S. A.) 870 518, 523 526 1989). 104 "must address" contentions, 16, takes issue. Notwithstanding usefulness arguments, line dictum. Dixon, 509 688, 706 (1993) approval Nat. Bank Ore. Independent Ins. Agents America, 508 439, 463, (1993), distinguish opinion's dicta' "). impermissibly chilled case; forecloses view.

Category: 1