Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-916_f2ah.pdf
Page Number: 30

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

11 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

provision  now  before  us.    For  example,  the  law  bars  peti-
tioners  who  have  filed  declaratory  judgment  actions  from 
challenging the same patent in inter partes review proceed-
ings, §315(a)(1), and it estops petitioners from seeking other 
forms  of  review  once  an  inter  partes  proceeding  finishes, 
§315(e).  If courts are going to review the agency’s applica-
tion  of  §315(b),  Thryv  wonders,  are  they  going  to  have  to 
review  the  agency’s  application  of  these  other  provisions 
too? 

But we could just as easily march this parade in the op-
posite  direction.    Even  assuming  (without  deciding)  that
Thryv is right and the reviewability of all these provisions 
stands or falls together, that seems at least as good an ar-
gument for as against judicial review.  If so much more is 
at stake, if many more kinds of agency errors could be insu-
lated from correction, isn’t that a greater reason to pay as-
siduous  attention  to  the  statute’s  terms?    Surely,  Thryv’s 
professed concern for judicial economy supplies no license
to ignore our duty to decide the cases properly put to us in
accord with the statute’s terms. 

III 
This last point leads to another reason why we should re-
ject  Thryv’s  reading  of  the  statute.    Even  if  the  company 
could  muster  some  doubt  about  the  reach  of  §314(d),  it
wouldn’t be enough to overcome the “well-settled presump-
tion favoring interpretations of statutes that allow judicial
review of administrative action.”  McNary v. Haitian Refu-
gee Center,  Inc., 498 U. S. 479, 496 (1991).  As this Court 
has long explained, “we will . . . find an intent to preclude 
such review only if presented with clear and convincing ev-
idence.”  Reno v. Catholic Social Services, Inc., 509 U. S. 43, 
64 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The presumption of judicial review is deeply rooted in our 
history  and  separation  of  powers.  To  guard  against  arbi-
trary  government,  our  founders  knew,  elections  are  not