Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
Page Number: 29

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

3 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

asserted by the Court.

Like  Astoria itself, Utah Construction discussed admin-
istrative preclusion only in dictum.  The case arose out of a 
contract dispute between the United States and a private 
contractor.    384  U. S.,  at  400.    The  contract  at  issue  con-
tained  a  disputes  clause  providing  for  an  administrative
process  by  which  “ ‘disputes  concerning  questions  of  fact
arising  under  th[e]  contract’ ”  would  be  decided  by  the
contracting officer, subject to written appeal to the head of 
the department.  Id., at 397–398.  The Wunderlich Act  of 
1954  likewise  provided  that  such  administrative  factfind-
ing  would  be  “final  and  conclusive”  in  a  later  breach-of-
contract  action  “ ‘unless  the  same  is  fra[u]dulent  or  capri-
cious or arbitrary or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to
imply  bad  faith,  or  is  not  supported  by  substantial  evi-
dence.’ ”  Id., at 399.  Because both “the disputes clause [of 
the contract] and the Wunderlich Act categorically state[d]
that  administrative  findings  on  factual  issues  relevant  to 
questions  arising  under  the  contract  [would]  be  final  and 
conclusive  on  the  parties,”  the  Court  required  the  lower
courts  to  accept  those  findings.  Id.,  at  419.    Only  after 
acknowledging  that  its  decision  “rest[ed]  upon  the  agree-
ment of the parties as modified by the Wunderlich Act” did 
the Court go on to comment that the decision was “harmo-
nious  with  general  principles  of  collateral  estoppel.”    Id., 
at 421. 

To  create  a  presumption  based  solely  on  dictum  would 
be  bad  enough,  but  the  principles  Utah  Construction  re-
ferred  to  were  far  too  equivocal  to  constitute  “long-
established  and  familiar”  background  principles  of  the 
common  law  of  the  sort  on  which  we  base  our  statutory 
inferences.  Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 U. S. 779, 783 
(1952).  Although Utah Construction asserted that “[w]hen
an  administrative  agency  is  acting  in  a  judicial  capacity
and  resolves  disputed  issues  of  fact  properly  before  it
which  the  parties  have  had  an  adequate  opportunity  to