Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

litigant deserves no rematch after a defeat fairly suffered.” 
Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U. S. 104, 
107 (1991).

Although the idea of issue preclusion is straightforward, 
it can be challenging to implement.  The Court, therefore, 
regularly turns to the Restatement (Second) of Judgments
for  a  statement  of  the  ordinary  elements  of  issue  preclu-
sion.  See,  e.g.,  Bobby  v.  Bies,  556  U. S.  825,  834  (2009); 
New  Hampshire  v.  Maine,  532  U. S.  742,  748–749  (2001); 
Baker  v.  General  Motors  Corp.,  522  U. S.  222,  233,  n.  5 
(1998).  The  Restatement  explains  that  subject  to  certain
well-known exceptions, the general rule is that “[w]hen an
issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by 
a  valid  and  final  judgment,  and  the  determination  is
essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive
in  a  subsequent  action  between  the  parties,  whether  on 
the  same  or  a  different  claim.”    Restatement  (Second)  of
Judgments  §27,  p.  250  (1980);  see  also  id.,  §28,  at  273
(listing  exceptions  such  as  whether  appellate  review  was 
available or whether there were “differences in the quality 
or extensiveness of the procedures followed”). 

Both this Court’s cases and the Restatement make clear 
that  issue  preclusion  is  not  limited  to  those  situations  in
which the same issue is before two courts.  Rather, where 
a  single  issue  is  before  a  court  and  an  administrative
agency,  preclusion  also  often  applies.    Indeed,  this  Court 
has  explained  that  because  the  principle  of  issue  preclu-
sion  was  so  “well  established”  at  common  law,  in  those 
situations  in  which  Congress  has  authorized  agencies  to 
resolve  disputes,  “courts  may  take  it  as  given  that  Con-
gress has legislated with the expectation that the principle 
[of  issue  preclusion]  will  apply  except  when  a  statutory
purpose to the contrary is evident.”  Astoria, supra, at 108. 
This  reflects  the  Court’s  longstanding  view  that  “ ‘[w]hen
an  administrative  agency  is  acting  in  a  judicial  capacity
and  resolves  disputed  issues  of  fact  properly  before  it