Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

10 

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

Opinion of the Court 

which  the  parties  have  had  an  adequate  opportunity  to
litigate, the courts have not hesitated to apply res judicata
to enforce repose.’ ” University of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U. S. 
788,  797–798  (1986)  (quoting  United  States  v.  Utah 
Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U. S. 394, 422 (1966)); see also 
Hayfield  Northern  R.  Co.  v.  Chicago  &  North  Western 
Transp. Co., 467 U. S. 622, 636, n. 15 (1984) (noting Utah 
Construction); Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U. S. 
461, 484–485, n. 26 (1982) (characterizing Utah Construc-
tion’s  discussion  of  administrative  preclusion  as  a  hold-
ing);  Restatement  (Second)  of  Judgments  §83(1),  at  266
(explaining that, with some limits, “a valid and final adju-
dicative  determination  by  an  administrative  tribunal  has 
the same effects under the rules of res judicata, subject to
the same exceptions and qualifications, as a judgment of a
court”).

Although  apparently  accepting  Astoria  and  Utah  Con-
struction,1  Hargis  argues  that  we  should  not  read  the 
Lanham Act (or, presumably, many other federal statutes) 
as authorizing issue preclusion.  Otherwise, Hargis warns,
the  Court  would  have  to  confront  “ ‘grave  and  doubtful
questions’  as  to  the  Lanham  Act’s  consistency  with  the
Seventh  Amendment  and  Article  III  of  the  Constitution.” 
Brief  for  Respondent  38  (quoting  United  States  ex rel. 
Attorney  General  v.  Delaware  &  Hudson  Co.,  213  U. S. 
366, 408 (1909)).  We are not persuaded. 

At  the  outset,  we  note  that  Hargis  does  not  argue  that
giving issue preclusive effect to the TTAB’s decision would 
be  unconstitutional.  Instead,  Hargis  contends  only  that 

—————— 

1 See  Brief  for  Respondent  28  (acknowledging  that  administrative 
“[p]reclusion’s  status  as  part  of  the  common-law  backdrop  means  that
courts  may  presume  its  application”  absent  contrary  indication  from
Congress)  (citing  Astoria  501  U. S.,  at  110);  Brief  for  Respondent  34 
(explaining that Utah Construction determined that “an administrative 
board’s factfinding . . .  could . . .  have preclusive effect in an Article III
suit raising damages claims over which the board had no jurisdiction”).