Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
Page Number: 30

4 

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

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

litigate, the courts have not hesitated to apply res judicata 
to  enforce  repose,”  it  admitted  that  “courts  have  used 
language  to  the  effect  that  res  judicata  principles  do  not 
apply  to  administrative  proceedings.”  384  U. S.,  at  421– 
422.  These contradictory signals are not typically the stuff 
of  which  background  rules  of  common  law  are  made.    Cf. 
Kirtsaeng  v.  John  Wiley  &  Sons,  Inc.,  568  U. S.  ___,  ___ 
(2013) (slip op., at 17) (presuming that Congress intended 
to  retain  the  “first  sale”  doctrine  in  copyright  statutes
based  on  that  common-law  doctrine’s  “impeccable  historic
pedigree”). 

B 
If  the  occasion  had  arisen  in  Astoria  for  the  Court  to 
examine the history of administrative preclusion, it would
have discovered that the issue was far from settled. 

At common law, principles of res judicata and collateral 
estoppel applied only to a decision by a “court of competent 
jurisdiction.”  Aurora City v. West, 7 Wall. 82, 102 (1869); 
accord,  Hopkins  v.  Lee,  6  Wheat.  109,  113  (1821);  Re-
statement of Judgments §§4, 7, and Comment f, pp. 20, 41, 
45 (1942).  That rule came with the corollary requirement
that  the  court  be  “legally  constituted”—that  is,  a  court
“known to and recognized by the law.”  2 H. Black, Law of 
Judgments  §516,  p.  614  (1891).    A  court  not  “legally  con-
stituted”  lacked  jurisdiction  to  enter  a  legally  binding
judgment,  and  thus  any  such  judgment  could  have  no
preclusive effect.  Ibid. 

Nineteenth  century  courts  generally  understood  the
term “court of competent jurisdiction” to include all courts
with  authority  and  jurisdiction  conclusively  to  resolve  a
dispute.  See J. Wells, A Treatise on the Doctrines of Res 
Judicata and Stare Decisis §§422–423, pp. 336–338 (1878); 
2  Black,  supra,  §516,  at  613–614.    Thus,  courts  of  law, 
courts of equity, admiralty courts, and foreign courts could
all satisfy the requirement of a “[c]ourt of competent juris-