Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
Page Number: 36

10 

B&B HARDWARE, INC. v. HARGIS INDUSTRIES, INC. 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Dickinson,  Administrative  Justice  and  the  Supremacy  of 
Law  39–75  (1927).    Sometimes  this  Court  refused  to  re-
view  factual  determinations  of  administrative  agencies at 
all, Smelting Co., 104 U. S., at 640, 646, and sometimes it 
allowed  lower  courts  to  engage  in  essentially  de novo 
review  of  factual  determinations,  see  ICC  v.  Alabama 
Midland R. Co., 168 U. S. 144, 174 (1897); Reckendorfer v. 
Faber, 92 U. S. 347, 351–355 (1876).

In  the  early  20th  century,  the  Court  began  to  move 
toward  substantial-evidence  review  of  administrative 
determinations involving mixed questions of law and fact, 
ICC v. Union Pacific R. Co., 222 U. S. 541, 546–548 (1912),
but reserved the authority to review de novo any so-called 
“jurisdictional facts.”  Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62– 
63 (1932).  Courts then struggled to determine the bound-
ary between jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional facts, and 
thus  to  determine  the  appropriate  standard  of  review  for
administrative decisions.  See, e.g., Estep v. United States, 
327  U. S.  114,  142  (1946)  (Frankfurter,  J.,  concurring  in
result)  (noting  the  “casuistic  difficulties  spawned”  in 
Crowell  and  the  “attritions  of  that  case  through  later
decisions”).  Although  Congress  provided  for  substantial-
evidence  review  in  the  Administrative  Procedure  Act,  5 
U. S. C. §706(2)(E), it required de novo review in the Lan-
ham Act. 

I need not take a side in this historical debate about the 
proper level of review for administrative findings of fact to 
conclude that its existence provides yet another reason to
doubt  that  Congress  intended  administrative  preclusion
to apply to the Lanham Act. 

III 
In  addition  to  being  unsupported  by  our  precedents  or 
historical  evidence,  the  majority’s  application  of  adminis-
trative preclusion raises serious constitutional concerns.