Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-508_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 16

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

13 

Opinion of the Court 

by State or Federal law.”  15 U. S. C. §57b(e).  Here, how-
ever, the question is not one of preserving pre-existing rem-
edies given by other statutory provisions.  The question is
whether those other provisions (namely, §13(b)) gave that 
remedy in the first place.

Fourth, the Commission points out that the courts of ap-
peals  have,  until  recently,  consistently  accepted  its  inter-
pretation, and that Congress has in effect twice ratified that 
interpretation in subsequent amendments to the Act.  See, 
e.g., Brief for Respondent 8, and n. 3 (citing the similar con-
clusions of eight Circuits).  But see FTC v. Credit Bureau 
Center, LLC, 937 F. 3d 764 (CA7 2019); FTC v. AbbVie Inc., 
976 F. 3d 327 (CA3 2020).  We have held that Congress’ ac-
quiescence to a settled judicial interpretation can suggest
adoption of that interpretation.  See, e.g., Monessen South-
western  R.  Co.  v.  Morgan,  486  U. S.  330,  338  (1988).    We 
have also said, however, that when “Congress has not com-
prehensively revised a statutory scheme but has made only 
isolated  amendments  . . . [i]t  is  impossible  to  assert  with 
any  degree  of  assurance  that  congressional  failure  to  act 
represents affirmative congressional approval of [a court’s] 
statutory interpretation.”  Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 
275,  292  (2001)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).  We 
find this latter statement the more relevant here. 

The two examples of acquiescence to which the Commis-
sion refers do not convince us that Congress acquiesced in
the  lower  courts’  interpretation.    The  Commission  first 
points  to  amendments  that  Congress  made  to  the  Act  in
1994.  See  §10,  108  Stat.  1695–1696.    Those  two  amend-
ments, however, simply revised §13(b)’s venue, joinder, and 
service rules, not its remedial provisions.  They tell us noth-
ing about the words “permanent injunction” in §13(b).

The Commission also points to amendments made to the
Act in 2006.  Those amendments modified the scope of §5 so
that,  where  certain  conduct  in  foreign  commerce  is  in-