Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
Page Number: 40.0

14 

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

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

(opinion  of  THOMAS, J.)  (explaining  that  interpretation  of
regulations  having  the  force  and  effect  of  law  is  likely  a
core  attribute  of  the  judicial  power  that  cannot  be  trans-
ferred to an executive agency).  Administrative preclusion 
thus threatens to “sap the judicial power as it exists under
the Federal Constitution, and to establish a government of
a  bureaucratic  character  alien  to  our  own  system,  wher-
ever  fundamental  rights  depend  . . .  upon  the  facts,  and 
finality  as  to  facts  becomes  in  effect  finality  in  law.” 
Crowell, 285 U. S., at 57. 

At  a  minimum,  this  practice  raises  serious  questions 
that  the  majority  does  not  adequately  confront.    The  ma-
jority  does  not  address  the  distinction  between  private 
rights  and  public  rights  or  the  nature  of  the  power  exer-
cised by an administrative agency when adjudicating facts
in private-rights disputes.  And it fails to consider whether 
applying  administrative  preclusion  to  a  core  factual  de-
termination in a private-rights dispute comports with the 
separation of powers. 

* 

* 

* 
I  would  hold  that  the  TTAB’s  trademark-registration
decisions  are  not  entitled  to  preclusive  effect  in  a  subse-
quent  infringement  suit.  The  common  law  does  not  sup-
port  a  general  presumption  in  favor  of  administrative
preclusion for statutes passed  before this Court’s decision 
in  Astoria,  and  the  text,  structure,  and  history  of  the 
Lanham  Act  provide  no  support  for  such  preclusion.    I 
disagree  with  the  majority’s  willingness  to  endorse  Asto-
ria’s unfounded presumption and to apply it to an adjudi-
cation  in  a  private-rights  dispute,  as  that  analysis  raises
serious  constitutional  questions.    Because  I  can  resolve 
this  case  on  statutory  grounds,  however,  I  leave  these 
questions for another day.  I respectfully dissent.