Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

14 

HERRERA v. WYOMING 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

grounds,  he  contends,  neither  ground  should  be  regarded 
as having an issue-preclusive effect.  This argument raises
an  important  question  that  this  Court  has  never  decided 
and  one  on  which  the  First  and  Second  Restatements  of 
Judgments  take  differing  views.    According  to  the  First
Restatement, a judgment based on alternative grounds “is
determinative  on  both  grounds,  although  either  alone
would  have  been  sufficient  to  support  the  judgment.”
Restatement of Judgments §68, Comment n (1942).  Other 
authorities  agree.  See  18  C.  Wright,  A.  Miller,  &  E. 
Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §4421, p. 613 (3d 
ed. 2016) (noting “substantial support in federal decisions”
for this approach).7  But the Second Restatement reversed 
this  view,  recommending  that  a  judgment  based  on  the 
determination of two independent issues “is not conclusive
with  respect  to  either  issue  standing  alone.”    §27,  Com-
ment i, at 259. 

There  is  scant  explanation  for  this  change  in  position 
beyond a reference in the Reporter’s Note to a single deci-
sion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 
Circuit.  Id., Reporter’s Note, Comment i, at 270 (discuss-
ing Halpern v. Schwartz, 426 F. 2d 102 (1970)).  But even 
that  court  has  subsequently  explained  that  Halpern  was 
“not intended to have . . . broad impact outside the [bank-
ruptcy] context,” and it continues to follow the rule of the
First Restatement “in circumstances divergent from those 
in Halpern.”  Winters v. Lavine, 574 F. 2d 46, 67 (1978).  It 
thus  appears  that  in  this  portion  of  the  Second  Restate-
ment,  the  Reporters  adopted  a  prescriptive  rather  than  a
descriptive approach.  In such situations, the Restatement 
loses much of its value.  See Kansas v. Nebraska, 574 U. S. 
—————— 

7 See,  e.g.,  Jean  Alexander  Cosmetics,  Inc.  v.  L’Oreal  USA,  Inc.,  458 
F. 3d  244,  251–257  (CA3  2006)  (collecting  cases);  In re  Westgate-
California  Corp.,  642  F. 2d  1174,  1176–1177  (CA9  1981);  Winters  v. 
Lavine,  574  F. 2d  46,  66–67  (CA2  1978);  Irving  Nat’l  Bank  v.  Law,  10 
F. 2d 721, 724 (CA2 1926) (Hand, J.).