Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf
Page Number: 40

Cite as:  587 U. S. ____ (2019) 

15 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

445, 475 (2015) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissent-
ing in part).

The  First  Restatement  has  the  more  compelling  posi-
tion.  There appear to be two principal objections to giving
alternative grounds preclusive effect.  The first is that the 
court rendering the judgment may not have given each of
the grounds “the careful deliberation and analysis normally
applied to essential issues.” Halpern, supra, at 105.  This 
argument  is  based  on  an  unjustified  assessment  of  the 
way  in  which  courts  do  their  work.  Even  when  a  court 
bases its decision on multiple grounds, “it is reasonable to
expect that such a finding is the product of careful judicial
reasoning.”  Jean  Alexander  Cosmetics,  Inc. v.  L’Oreal 
USA, Inc., 458 F. 3d 244, 254 (CA3 2006).

The other argument cited for the Second Restatement’s
rule is that the losing party may decline to appeal if one of
the  two  bases  for  a  judgment  is  strong  and  the  other  is
weak.  §27,  Comment  i,  at  259.  There  are  reasons  to  be 
skeptical  of  this  argument  as  well.  While  there  may  be
cases in which the presence of multiple grounds causes the 
losing party to forgo an appeal, that is likely to be true in 
only a small subset of cases involving such judgments. 

Moreover,  other  aspects  of  issue-preclusion  doctrine
protect  against  giving  binding  effect  to  decisions  that 
result from unreliable litigation.  Issue preclusion applies
only  to  questions  “actually  and  necessarily  determined,” 
Montana,  440  U. S.,  at  153,  and  a  party  may  be  able  to
avoid preclusion by showing that it “did not have an ade-
quate  opportunity  or  incentive  to  obtain  a  full  and  fair 
adjudication  in  the  initial  action.”    Restatement  (Second)
of Judgments §28(5)(c).  To be sure, this exception should
not  be  applied  “without  a  compelling  showing  of  unfair-
ness,  nor  should  it  be  based  simply  on  a  conclusion  that 
the  first  determination  was  patently erroneous.”  Id., §28,
Comment j, at 284.  This exception provides an important
safety  valve,  but  it  is  narrow  and  clearly  does  not  apply