Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
Page Number: 15

12 

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

Opinion of the Court 

power to issue judgments with preclusive effect; that logic 
would  not  seem  to  turn  on  the  nature  of  the  competent
tribunal.  And  at  the  same  time,  adopting  Hargis’  view
would  dramatically  undercut  agency  preclusion,  despite 
what the Court has already said to the contrary.  Nothing 
in Hargis’ avoidance argument is weighty enough to over-
come these weaknesses. 

The claim that we should read the Lanham Act narrowly 
to  avoid  Article  III  concerns  is  equally  unavailing—and 
for  similar  reasons.  Hargis  argues  that  because  it  might
violate Article III if an agency could make a decision with 
preclusive  effect  in  a  later  proceeding  before  a  federal
court,  we  should  conclude,  as  a  statutory  matter,  that
issue preclusion is unavailable.  Such a holding would not
fit with our precedent.  For instance, in Elliott, the Court, 
relying  on  Utah  Construction,  explained  that  absent  a
contrary  indication,  Congress  presumptively  intends  that
an  agency’s  determination  (there,  a  state  agency)  has 
preclusive  effect.  478  U. S.,  at  796–799;  see  also  Astoria, 
501  U. S.,  at  110  (recognizing  the  “presumption”).    To  be 
sure, the Court has never addressed whether such preclu-
sion offends Article III.  But because this Court’s cases are 
so  clear,  there  is  no  ambiguity  for  this  Court  to  sidestep
through constitutional avoidance.2 

III 
The  next  question  is whether  there  is  an  “evident”  rea-
son  why  Congress  would  not  want  TTAB  decisions  to 
—————— 

2 Our  dissenting  colleagues  argue  that  Utah  Construction’s  conclu-
sion  that  courts  “have  not  hesitated”  to  apply  administrative  preclu-
sion,  384  U. S.,  at  422,  was  mistaken  and  certainly  should  not  be
applied  to  statutes—such  as  the  Lanham  Act—enacted  prior  to  1966.
We do not decide who reads the history better.  The Court has repeat-
edly endorsed Utah Construction and, importantly, neither party chal-
lenges  its  historical  accuracy.    For  the  same  reason,  we  do  not  decide 
whether  such  preclusion  is  unconstitutional  because  the  issue  is  not
before us.