Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

12 

HERRERA v. WYOMING 

Opinion of the Court 

fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court
determination  essential  to  the  prior  judgment.”    New 
Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U. S. 742, 748–749 (2001).  Even 
when  the  elements  of  issue  preclusion  are  met,  however, 
an exception may be warranted if there has been an inter-
vening “ ‘change in [the] applicable legal context.’ ”  Bobby 
v.  Bies,  556  U. S.  825,  834  (2009)  (quoting  Restatement 
(Second)  of  Judgments  §28,  Comment  c  (1980));  see 
Limbach, 466 U. S., at 363 (refusing to find a party bound 
by  “an  early  decision  based  upon  a  now  repudiated  legal 
doctrine”);  see  also  Montana  v.  United  States,  440  U. S. 
147, 155 (1979) (asking “whether controlling facts or legal
principles  ha[d]  changed  significantly”  since  a  judgment
before giving it preclusive effect); id., at 157–158 (explain-
ing that a prior judgment was conclusive “[a]bsent signifi-
cant changes in controlling facts or legal principles” since
the  judgment);  Commissioner  v.  Sunnen,  333  U. S.  591, 
599 (1948) (issue preclusion “is designed to prevent repeti-
tious lawsuits over matters which have once been decided 
and  which  have  remained  substantially  static,  factually 
and legally”).  The change-in-law exception recognizes that 
applying  issue  preclusion  in  changed  circumstances  may 
not  “advance  the  equitable  administration  of  the  law.” 
Bobby, 556 U. S., at 836–837.2 

—————— 

2 The  dissent  does  not  disagree  outright  with  this  conclusion,  noting 
only  that  “there  is  a  respectable  argument  on  the  other  side,”  post,  at 
12.  The dissent argues that the cases cited above are distinguishable, 
but we do not read them as narrowly as does the dissent.  We note, too, 
that  the  lower  federal  courts  have  long  applied  the  change-in-law
exception in a variety of contexts.  See, e.g., Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova 
Chemicals Corp. (Canada), 803 F. 3d 620, 627–630 (CA Fed. 2015), cert. 
denied, 578 U. S. ___ (2016); Coors Brewing Co. v. Mendez-Torres, 562 
F.  3d  3,  11  (CA1  2009),  abrogated  on  other  grounds  by  Levin  v.  Com-
merce  Energy,  Inc.,  560  U. S.  413  (2010);  Ginters  v.  Frazier,  614  F.  3d 
822, 826–827 (CA8 2010); Faulkner v. National Geographic Enterprises 
Inc., 409 F. 3d 26, 37–38 (CA2 2005); Chippewa & Flambeau Improve-
ment Co. v. FERC, 325 F. 3d 353, 356–357 (CADC 2003); Spradling v.