author: Chief Justice Rehnquist

text:
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT v. RUCKER et al.
    No. 00-1770.
    Argued February 19, 2002 —
    Decided March 26, 2002

      James A. Feldman argued the cause for the federal petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General McCallum, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Barbara C. Biddle, Howard S. Scher, Richard A. Hauser, Carole W. Wilson, Howard M. Schmeltzer, and Harold J. Rennett. Gary T Lafayette
      argued the cause for the private petitioners in No. 00-1781. With him on the briefs was Susan I Kumagai.

      Paul Renne argued the cause for respondents in both cases. With him on the brief were James Donato, Whitty Somvichian, and John Murcko

      Together with No. 00-1781, Oakland Housing Authority et al. v. Rucker et al., also on certiorari to the same court.

       Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Council of Large Public Housing Authorities et al. by William F. Maher and Robert A. Graham; for the International City-County Management Association et al. by Richard Ruda and James I. Crowley; and for the Washington Legal Foundation et al. by Daniel J. Popeo and Richard A Samp.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for AARP et al. by Catherine M. Bishop and Julie E. Levin; for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Mark J. Lopez, Steven R. Shapiro, and Alan L. Schlosser; for the National Network to End Domestic Violence et al. by Bruce D. Sokler and Fernando R. Laguarda; for the Pennsylvania Association of Resident Councils et al. by Eileen D. Yacknin and Richard S. Matesic; and for Lawrence Lessig et al. by David T. Goldberg and Daniel N. Abrahamson.

        Kirsten D. Levingston, Michael S. Feldberg, and Martha F. Davis filed a brief for the Coalition to Protect Public Housing et al. as amici curiae.

   Chief Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

With drug dealers “increasingly imposing a reign of terror on public and other federally assisted low-income housing tenants,” Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. § 5122, 102 Stat. 4301, 42 U. S. C. § 11901(3) (1994 ed.). The Act, as later amended, provides that each “public housing agency shall utilize leases which ... provide that any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other tenants or any drug-related criminal activity on or off such premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant’s household, or any guest or other person under the tenant’s control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy.” 42 U. S. C. § 1437d(Z)(6) (1994 ed., Supp. V). Petitioners say that this statute requires lease terms that allow a local public housing authority to evict a tenant when a member of the tenant’s household or a guest engages in drug-related criminal activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or had reason to know, of that activity. Respondents say it does not. We agree with petitioners.

Respondents are four public housing tenants of the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA). Paragraph 9(m) of respondents’ leases, tracking the language of § 1437d(Z)(6), obligates the tenants to “assure that the tenant, any member of the household, a guest, or another person under the tenant’s control, shall not engage in... [a]ny drug-related criminal activity on or near the premise[s].” App. 59. Respondents also signed an agreement stating that the tenant “understand^] that if I or any member of my household or guests should violate this lease provision, my tenancy may be terminated and I may be evicted.” Id., at 69.

In late 1997 and early 1998, OHA instituted eviction proceedings in state court against respondents, alleging violations of this lease provision. The complaint alleged: (1) that the respective grandsons of respondents William Lee and Barbara Hill, both of whom were listed as residents on the leases, were caught in the apartment complex parking lot smoking marijuana; (2) that the daughter of respondent Pearlie Rucker, who resides with her and is listed on the lease as a resident, was found with cocaine and a crack cocaine pipe three blocks from Rucker’s apartment; and (3) that on three instances within a 2-month period, respondent Herman Walker’s caregiver and two others were found with cocaine in Walker’s apartment. OHA had issued Walker notices of a lease violation on the first two occasions, before initiating the eviction action after the third violation.

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations administering § 1437d(Z)(6) require lease terms authorizing evictions in these circumstances. The HUD regulations closely track the statutory language, and provide that “[i]n deciding to evict for criminal activity, the [public housing authority] shall have discretion to consider all of the circumstances of the case . . . .” 24 CFR § 966.4( ¿)(5)(i) (2001). The agency made clear that local public housing authorities’ discretion to evict for drug-related activity includes those situations in which “[the] tenant did not know, could not foresee, or could not control behavior by other occupants of the unit.” 56 Fed. Reg. 51560, 51567 (1991).

After OHA initiated the eviction proceedings in state court, respondents commenced actions against HUD, OHA, and OHA’s director in United States District Court. They challenged HUD’s interpretation of the statute under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A), arguing that 42 U. S. C. § 1437d(Z)(6) does not require lease terms authorizing the eviction of so-called “innocent” tenants, and, in the alternative, that if it does, then the statute is unconstitutional. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining OHA from “terminating the leases of tenants pursuant to paragraph 9(m) of the ‘Tenant Lease’ for drug-related criminal activity that does not occur within the tenant’s apartment unit when the tenant did not know of and had no reason to know of, the drug-related criminal activity.” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 00-1770, pp. 165a-166a.

A panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that § 1437d(Z)(6) unambiguously permits the eviction of tenants who violate the lease provision, regardless of whether the tenant was personally aware of the drug activity, and that the statute is constitutional. See Rucker v. Davis, 203 F. 3d 627 (CA9 2000). An en banc panel of the Court of Appeals reversed and affirmed the District Court’s grant of the preliminary injunction. See Rucker v. Davis, 237 F. 3d 1113 (2001). That court held that HUD’s interpretation permitting the eviction of so-called “innocent” tenants “is inconsistent with Congressional intent and must be rejected” under the first step of Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843 (1984). 237 F. 3d, at 1126.

We granted certiorari, 533 U. S. 976 (2001), 534 U. S. 813 (2001), and now reverse, holding that 42 U. S. C. § 1437d(Z)(6) unambiguously requires lease terms that vest local public housing authorities with the discretion to evict tenants for the drug-related activity of household members and guests whether or not the tenant knew, or should have known, about the activity.

That this is so seems evident from the plain language of the statute. It provides that “[e]ach public housing agency shall utilize leases which . . . provide that . . . any drug-related criminal activity on or off such premises, engaged in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant’s household, or any guest or other person under the tenant’s control, shall be cause for termination of tenancy.” 42 U. S. C. § 1437d(Z)(6) (1994 ed., Supp. V). The en banc Court of Appeals thought the statute did not address “the level of personal knowledge or fault that is required for eviction.” 237 F. 3d, at 1120. Yet Congress’ decision not to impose any qualification in the statute, combined with its use of the term “any” to modify “drug-related criminal activity,” precludes any knowledge requirement. See United States v. Monsanto, 491 U. S. 600, 609 (1989). As we have explained, “the word ‘any’ has an expansive meaning, that is, ‘one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind.’ ” United States v. Gonzales, 520 U. S. 1, 5 (1997). Thus, any drug-related activity engaged in by the specified persons is grounds for termination, not just drug-related activity that the tenant knew, or should have known, about.

The en banc Court of Appeals also thought it possible that “under the tenant’s control” modifies not just “other person,” but also “member%-of the tenant’s household” and “guest.” 237 F. 3d, at 1120. The court ultimately adopted this reading, concluding that the statute prohibits eviction where the tenant, “for a lack of knowledge or other reason, could not realistically exercise control over the conduct of a household member or guesti” Id., at 1126. But this interpretation runs counter to basic rules of grammar. The disjunctive “or” means that the qualification applies only to “other person.” Indeed, the view that “under the tenant’s control” modifies everything coming before it in the sentence would result in the nonsensical reading that the statute applies to “a public housing tenant . . . under the tenant’s control.” HUD offers a convincing explanation for the grammatical imperative that “under the tenant’s control” modifies only “other person”: “by ‘control,’ the statute means control in the sense that the tenant has permitted access to the premises.” 66 Fed. Reg. 28781 (2001). Implicit in the terms “household member” or “guest” is that access to the premises has been granted by the tenant. Thus, the plain language of § 1437d(Z)(6) requires leases that grant public housing authorities the discretion to terminate tenancy without regard to the tenant’s knowledge of the drug-related criminal activity.

Comparing §1437d(Z)(6) to a related statutory provision reinforces the unambiguous text. The civil forfeiture statute that makes all leasehold interests subject to forfeiture when used to commit drug-related criminal activities expressly exempts tenants who had no knowledge of the activity: “[N]o property shall be forfeited under this paragraph ... by reason of any act or omission established by that owner to have been committed or omitted without the knowledge or consent of that owner.” 21 U. S. C. § 881(a)(7) (1994 ed.). Because this forfeiture provision was amended in the same Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 that created 42 U. S. C. § 1437d(Z)(6), the en banc Court of Appeals thought Congress “meant them to be read consistently” so that the knowledge requirement should be read into the eviction provision. 237 F. 3d, at 1121-1122. But the two sections deal with distinctly different matters. The “innocent owner” defense for drug forfeiture cases was already in existence prior to 1988 as part of 21 U. S. C. § 881(a)(7). All that Congress did in the 1988 Act was to add leasehold interests to the property interests that might be forfeited under the drug statute. And if such a forfeiture action were to be brought against a leasehold interest, it would be subject to the pre-existing “innocent owner” defense. But 42 U. S. C. § 1437(d)(Z)(6), with which we deal here, is a quite different measure. It is entirely reasonable to think that the Government, when seeking to transfer private property to itself in a forfeiture proceeding, should be subject to an “innocent owner defense,” while it should not be when acting as a landlord in a public housing project. The forfeiture provision shows that Congress knew exactly how to provide an “innocent owner” defense. It did not provide one in § 1437d(Z)(6).

The en banc Court of Appeals next resorted to legislative history. The Court of Appeals correctly recognized that reference to legislative history is inappropriate when the text of the statute is unambiguous. 237 F. 3d, at 1123. Given that the en banc Court of Appeals’ finding of textual ambigúity is wrong, see supra, at 130-132, there is no need to consult legislative history.

Nor was the en banc Court of Appeals correct in concluding that this plain reading of the statute leads to absurd results. The statute does not require the eviction of any tenant who violated the lease provision. Instead, it entrusts that decision to the local public housing authorities, who are in the best position to take account of, among other things, the degree to which the housing project suffers from “rampant drug-related or violent crime,” 42 U. S. C. § 11901(2) (1994 ed. and Supp. V), “the seriousness of the offending action,” 66 Fed. Reg., at 28803, and “the extent to which the leaseholder has ... taken all reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate the offending action,” ibid. It is not “absurd” that a local housing authority may sometimes evict a tenant who had no knowledge of the drug-related activity. Such “no-fault” eviction is a common “incident of tenant responsibility under normal landlord-tenant law and practice.” 56 Fed. Reg., at 51567. Strict liability maximizes deterrence and eases enforcement difficulties. See Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U. S. 1, 14 (1991).

And, of course, there is an obvious reason why Congress would have permitted local public housing authorities to conduct no-fault evictions: Regardless of knowledge, a tenant who “cannot control drug crime, or other criminal activities by a household member which threaten health or safety of other residents, is a threat to other residents and the project.” 56 Fed. Reg., at 51567. With drugs leading to “murders, muggings, and other forms of violence against tenants,” and to the “deterioration of the physical environment that requires substantial government expenditures,” 42 U. S. C. § 11901(4) (1994 ed., Supp. V), it was reasonable for Congress to permit no-fault evictions in order to “provide public and other federally assisted low-income housing that is decent, safe, and free from illegal drugs,” § 11901(1) (1994 ed.).

In another effort to avoid the plain meaning of the statute, the en banc Court of Appeals invoked the canon of constitutional avoidance. But that canon “has no application in the absence of statutory ambiguity.” United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U. S. 483, 494 (2001). “Any other conclusion, while purporting to be an exercise in judicial restraint, would trench upon the legislative powers vested in Congress by Art. I, §1, of the Constitution.” United States v. Albertini, 472 U. S. 675, 680 (1985). There are, moreover, no “serious constitutional doubts” about Congress’ affording local public housing authorities the discretion to conduct no-fault evictions for drug-related crime. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 314, n. 9 (1993) (emphasis deleted).

The en banc Court of Appeals held that HUD’s interpretation “raise[s] serious questions under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” because it permits “tenants to be deprived of their property interest without any relationship to individual wrongdoing.” 237 F. 3d, at 1124-1125 (citing Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203, 224-225 (1961); Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. Danaher, 238 U. S. 482 (1915)). But both of these cases deal with the acts of government as sovereign. In Scales, the United States criminally charged the defendant with knowing membership in an organization that advocated the overthrow of the United States Government. In Danaher, an Arkansas statute forbade discrimination among customers of a telephone company. The situation in the present cases is entirely different. The government is not attempting to criminally punish or civilly regulate respondents as members of the general populace. It is instead acting as a landlord of property that it owns, invoking a clause in a lease to which respondents have agreed and which Congress has expressly required. Scales and Danaher east no constitutional doubt on such actions.

The Court of Appeals sought to bolster its discussion of constitutional doubt by pointing to the fact that respondents have a property interest in their leasehold interest, citing Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U. S. 444 (1982). This is undoubtedly true, and Greene held that an effort to deprive a tenant of such a right without proper notice violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But, in the present cases, such deprivation will occur in the state court where OHA brought the unlawful detainer action against respondents. There is no indication that notice has not been given by OHA in the past, or that it will not be given in the future. Any individual factual disputes about whether the lease provision was actually violated can, of course, be resolved in these proceedings.

We hold that “Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.” Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S., at 842. Section 1437d(Z)(6) requires lease terms that give local public housing authorities the discretion to terminate the lease of a tenant when a member of the household or a guest engages in drug-related activity, regardless of whether the tenant knew, or should have known, of the drug-related activity.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

       In February 1998, OHA dismissed the unlawful detainer action against Rucker, after her daughter was incarcerated, and thus no longer posed a threat to other tenants.

       The regulations require public housing authorities (PHAs) to impose a lease obligation on tenants:
      “To assure that the tenant, any member of the household, a guest, or another person under the tenant’s control, shall not engage in:
      “(A) Any criminal activity that threatens the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the PHA’s public housing premises by other residents or employees of the PHA, or
      “(B) Any drug-related criminal activity on or near such premises.
      “Any criminal activity in violation of the preceding sentence shall be cause for termination of tenancy, and for eviction from the unit.” 24 CFR §966.4(f)(12)(i) (2001).

       Respondents Rucker and Walker also raised Americans with Disabilities Act claims that are not before this Court. And all of the respondents raised state-law claims against OHA that are not before this Court.

       Even if it were appropriate to look at legislative history, it would not help respondents. The en banc Court of Appeals relied on two passages from a 1990 Senate Report on a proposed amendment to the eviction provision. 237 F. 3d, at 1123 (citing S. Rep. No. 101-316 (1990)). But this Report was commenting on language from a Senate version of the 1990 amendment, which was never enacted. The language in the Senate version, which would have imposed a different standard of cause for eviction for drug-related crimes than the unqualified language of § 1437d(Z)(6), see 136 Cong. Rec. 15991, 16012 (1990) (reproducing S. 566, 101st Cong., 2d Sess., §§ 521(f)'and 714(a) (1990)), was rejected at Conference. See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 101-943, p. 418 (1990). And, as the dissent from the en banc decision below explained, the passages may plausibly be read as a mere suggestion about how local public housing authorities should exercise the “wide discretion to evict tenants connected with drug-related criminal behavior” that the lease provision affords them. 237 F. 3d, at 1134 (Sneed, J., dissenting).
      Respondents also cite language from a House Report commenting on the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, codified at 18 U. S. C. § 983. Brief for Respondents 15-16. For the reasons discussed supra, at 132 and this page, legislative history concerning forfeiture provisions is not probative on the interpretation of § 1437d(Z)(6).
      A 1996 amendment to § 1437d(Z)(6), enacted five years after HUD issued its interpretation of the statute, supports our holding. The 1996 amendment expanded the reach of § 1437d(Z)(6), changing the language of the lease provision from applying to activity taking place “on or near” the public housing premises, to activity occurring “on or off” the public housing premises. See Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996, 19(a)(2), 110 Stat. 836. But Congress, “presumed to be aware” of HUD’s interpretation rejecting a knowledge requirement, made no other change to the statute. Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 580 (1978).

       For the reasons discussed above, no-fault eviction, which is specifically authorized under § 1437d(Z)(6), does not violate § 1437d(Z)(2), which prohibits public housing authorities from including “unreasonable terms and conditions [in their leases].” In addition, the general statutory provision in the latter section cannot trump the clear language of the more specific § 1437d(Z)(6). See Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U. S. 504, 524-526 (1989).

       The en banc Court of Appeals cited only the due process constitutional concern. Respondents raise two others: the First Amendment and the Excessive Fines Clause. We agree with Judge O’Scannlain, writing for the panel that reversed the injunction, that the statute does not raise substantial First Amendment or Excessive Fines Clause concerns. Lyng v. Automobile Workers, 485 U. S. 360 (1988), forecloses respondents’ claim that the eviction of unknowing tenants violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of association. See 203 F. 3d 627, 647 (2000). And termination of tenancy “is neither a cash nor an in-kind payment imposed by and payable to the government” and therefore is “not subject to analysis as an excessive fine.” Id., at 648.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author:
      Chief Justice Rehnquist
      Justice Breyer,

license: Public Domain

text:
    HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
    No. 00-1595.
    Argued January 15, 2002 —
    Decided March 27, 2002

      Ryan D. McCortney argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Maurice Babkin.

      Paul R. Q. Wolf son argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Arthur F Rosenfeld, John H. Ferguson, Norton J. Come, and John Emad Arbab.

        Ann Elizabeth Reesman and Daniel V. Yager filed a brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of New York et al. by Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of New York, Caitlin J. Halligan, Solicitor General, Daniel Smirlock, Deputy Solicitor General, and M. Patricia Smith and Seth Kupperberg, Assistant Attorneys General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Janet Napolitano of Arizona, Bill Lockyer of California, Earl I. Anzai of Hawaii, Thomas F. Reilly of Massachusetts, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., of West Virginia, and Anabelle Rodriguez of Puerto Rico; for the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation et al. by Craig Goldblatt and Lucas Guttentag; for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations by Jonathan P. Hiatt, James B. Coppess, and Michael Rubin; for Employers and Employer Organizations by David A Schulz, Jeffrey H. Drichta, and Michael J. Wishnie; and for the National Employment Law Project et al. by Rebecca Smith, James Reif, and James Williams.

   Chief Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The National Labor Relations Board (Board) awarded backpay to an undocumented alien who has never been legally authorized to work in the United States. We hold that such relief is foreclosed by federal immigration policy, as expressed by Congress in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).

Petitioner Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. (petitioner or Hoffman), custom-formulates chemical compounds for businesses that manufacture pharmaceutical, construction, and household products. In May 1988, petitioner hired Jose Castro to operate various blending machines that “mix and cook" the particular formulas per customer order. Before being hired for this position, Castro presented documents that appeared to verify his authorization to work in the United States. In December 1988, the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, began a union-organizing campaign at petitioner’s production plant. Castro and several other employees supported the organizing campaign and distributed authorization cards to co-workers. In January 1989, Hoffman laid off Castro and other employees engaged in these organizing activities.

Three years later, in January 1992, respondent Board found that Hoffman unlawfully selected four employees, including Castro, for layoff “in order to rid itself of known union supporters” in violation of § 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). 306 N. L. R. B. 100. To remedy this violation, the Board ordered that Hoffman (1) cease and desist from further violations of the NLRA, (2) post a detailed notice to its employees regarding the remedial order, and (3) offer reinstatement and backpay to the four affected employees. Id., at 107-108. Hoffman entered into a stipulation with the Board’s General Counsel and agreed to abide by the Board’s order.

In June 1993, the parties proceeded to a compliance hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to determine the amount of backpay owed to each discriminatee. On the final day of the hearing, Castro testified that he was born in Mexico and that he had never been legally admitted to, or authorized to work in, the United States. 314 N. L. R. B. 683, 685 (1994). He admitted gaining employment with Hoffman only after tendering a birth certificate belonging to a friend who was born in Texas. Ibid. He also admitted that he used this birth certificate to fraudulently obtain a California driver’s license and a Social Security card, and to fraudulently obtain employment following his layoff by Hoffman. Ibid. Neither Castro nor the Board’s General Counsel offered any evidence that Castro had applied or intended to apply for legal authorization to work in the United States. Ibid. Based on this testimony, the ALJ found the Board precluded from awarding Castro backpay or reinstatement as such relief would be contrary to Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U. S. 883 (1984), and in conflict with IRC A, which makes it unlawful for employers knowingly to hire undocumented workers or for employees to use fraudulent documents to establish employment eligibility. 314 N. L. R. B., at 685-686.

In September 1998, four years after the ALJ’s decision, and nine years after Castro was fired, the Board reversed with respect to backpay. 326 N. L. R. B. 1060. Citing its earlier decision in A. P. R. A. Fuel Oil Buyers Group, Inc., 320 N. L. R. B. 408 (1995), the Board determined that “the most effective way to accommodate and further the immigration policies embodied in [IRCA] is to provide the protections and remedies of the [NLRA] to undocumented workers in the same manner as to other employees.” 326 N. L. R. B., at 1060. The Board thus found that Castro was entitled to $66,951 of backpay, plus interest. Id., at 1062. It calculated this backpay award from the date of Castro’s termination to the date Hoffman first learned of Castro’s undocumented status, a period of AVz years. Id., at 1061. A dissenting Board member would have affirmed the ALJ and denied Castro all backpay. Id., at 1062 (opinion of Hurtgen).

Hoffman filed a petition for review of the Board’s order in the Court of Appeals. A panel of the Court of Appeals denied the petition for review. 208 F. 3d 229 (CADC 2000). After rehearing the case en banc, the court again denied the petition for review and enforced the Board’s order. 237 F. 3d 639 (2001). We granted certiorari, 533 U. S. 976 (2001), and now reverse.

This case exemplifies the principle that the Board’s discretion to select and fashion remedies for violations of the NLRA, though generally broad, see, e. g., NLRB v. Seven-Up Bottling Co. of Miami, Inc., 344 U. S. 344, 346-347 (1953), is not unlimited, see, e. g., NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U. S. 240, 257-258 (1939); Southern S. S. Co. v. NLRB, 316 U. S. 31, 46-47 (1942); NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U. S. 513, 532-534 (1984); Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, supra, at 902-904. Since the Board’s inception, we have consistently set aside awards of reinstatement or backpay to employees found guilty of serious illegal conduct in connection with their employment. In Fansteel, the Board awarded reinstatement with backpay to employees who engaged in a “sit down strike” that led to confrontation with local law enforcement officials. We set aside the award, saying:

“We are unable to conclude that Congress intended to compel employers to retain persons in their employ regardless of their unlawful conduct, — to invest those who go on strike with an immunity from discharge for acts of trespass or violence against the employer’s property, which they would not have enjoyed had they remained at work.” 306 U. S., at 255.

Though we found that the employer had committed serious violations of the NLRA, the Board had no discretion to remedy those violations by awarding reinstatement with back-pay to employees who themselves had committed serious criminal acts. Two years later, in Southern S. S. Co., supra, the Board awarded reinstatement with backpay to five employees whose strike on shipboard had amounted to a mutiny in violation of federal law. We set aside the award, saying:

“It is sufficient for this case to observe that the Board has not been commissioned to effectuate the policies of the Labor Relations Act so single-mindedly that it may wholly ignore other and equally important [congressional objectives.” 316 U. S., at 47.

Although the Board had argued that the employees’ conduct did not in fact violate the federal mutiny statute, we rejected this view, finding the Board’s interpretation of a statute so far removed from its expertise merited no deference from this Court. Id., at 40-46. Since Southern S. S. Co., we have accordingly never deferred to the Board’s remedial preferences where such preferences potentially trench upon federal statutes and policies unrelated to the NLRA. Thus, we have precluded the Board from enforcing orders found in conflict with the Bankruptcy Code, see Bildisco, supra, at 527-534, 529, n. 9 (“While the Board’s interpretation of the NLRA should be given some deference, the proposition that the Board’s interpretation of statutes outside its expertise is likewise to be deferred to is novel”), rejected claims that federal antitrust policy should defer to the NLRA, Connell Constr. Co. v. Plumbers, 421 U. S. 616, 626 (1975), and precluded the Board from selecting remedies pursuant to its own interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act, Carpenters v. NLRB, 357 U. S. 93, 108-110 (1958).

Our decision in Sure-Tan followed this line of cases and set aside an award closely analogous to the award challenged here. There we confronted for the first time a potential conflict between the NLRA and federal immigration policy, as then expressed in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 1101 et seq. Two companies had unlawfully reported alien-employees to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in retaliation for union activity. Rather than face INS sanction, the employees voluntarily departed to Mexico. The Board investigated and found the companies acted in violation of §§ 8(a)(1) and (3) of the NLRA. The Board’s ensuing order directed the companies to reinstate the affected workers and pay them six months’ backpay.

We affirmed the Board’s determination that the NLRA applied to undocumented workers, reasoning that the immigration laws “as presently written” expressed only a “ ‘peripheral concern’” with the employment of illegal aliens. 467 U. S., at 892 (quoting De Canas v. Bica, 424 U. S. 351, 360 (1976)). “For whatever reason,” Congress had not “made it a separate criminal offense” for employers to hire an illegal alien, or for an illegal alien “to accept employment after entering this country illegally.” Sure-Tan, 467 U. S., at 892-893. Therefore, we found “no reason to conclude that application of the NLRA to employment practices affecting such aliens would necessarily conflict with the terms of the INA.” Id., at 893.

With respect to the Board’s selection of remedies, however, we found its authority limited by federal immigration policy. See id., at 903 (“In devising remedies for unfair labor practices, the Board is obliged to take into account another ‘equally important Congressional objective’ ” (quoting Southern S. S. Co., supra, at 47)). For example, the Board was prohibited from effectively rewarding a violation of the immigration laws by reinstating workers not authorized to reenter the United States. Sure-Tan, 467 U. S., at 903. Thus, to avoid “a potential conflict with the INA,” the Board’s reinstatement order had to be conditioned upon proof of “the employees’ legal reentry.” Ibid. “Similarly,” with respect to backpay, we stated: “[T]he employees must be deemed ‘unavailable’ for work (and the accrual of backpay therefore tolled) during any period when they were not lawfully entitled to be present and employed in the United States.” Ibid. “[I]n light of the practical workings of the immigration laws,” such remedial limitations were appropriate even if they led to “[t]he probable unavailability of the [NLRA’s] more effective remedies.” Id., at 904.

The Board cites our decision in ABF Freight System, Inc. v. NLRB, 510 U. S. 317 (1994), as authority for awarding backpay to employees who violate federal laws. In ABF Freight, we held that an employee’s false testimony at a compliance proceeding did not require the Board to deny reinstatement with backpay. The question presented was “a narrow one,” id., at 322, limited to whether the Board was obliged to “adopt a rigid rule” that employees who testify falsely under oath automatically forfeit NLRA remedies, id., at 325. There are significant differences between that case and this. First, we expressly did not address whether the Board could award backpay to an employee who engaged in “serious misconduct” unrelated to internal Board proceedings, id., at 322, n. 7, such as threatening to kill a supervisor, ibid, (citing Precision Window Mfg. v. NLRB, 963 F. 2d 1105, 1110 (CA8 1992)), or stealing from an employer, 510 U. S., at 322, n. 7 (citing NLRB v. Commonwealth Foods, Inc., 506 F. 2d 1065, 1068 (CA4 1974)). Second, the challenged order did not implicate federal statutes or policies administered by other federal agencies, a “most delicate area” in which the Board must be “particularly careful in its choice of remedy.” Burlington Truck, Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U. S. 156, 172 (1962). Third, the employee misconduct at issue, though serious, was not at all analogous to misconduct that renders an underlying employment relationship illegal under explicit provisions of federal law. See,’ e. g., 237 F 3d, at 657, n. 2 (Sentelle, J., dissenting) (“The perjury statute provides for criminal sanctions; it does not forbid a present or potential perjurer from obtaining a job” (distinguishing ABF Freight)). For these reasons, we believe the present case is controlled by the Southern S. S. Co. line of cases, rather than by ABF Freight.

It is against this decisional background that we turn to the question presented here. The parties and the lower courts focus much of their attention on Sure-Tan, particularly its express limitation of backpay to aliens “lawftilly entitled to be present and employed in the United States.” 467 U. S., at 903. All agree that as a matter of plain language, this limitation forecloses the award of backpay to Castro. Castro was never lawfully entitled to be present or employed in the United States, and thus, under the plain language of Sure-Tan, he has no right to claim backpay. The Board takes the view, however, that read in context, this limitation applies only to aliens who left the United States and thus cannot claim backpay without lawful reentry. Brief for Respondent 17-24. The Court of Appeals agreed with this view. 237 F. 3d, at 642-646. Another Court of Appeals, however, agrees with Hoffman, and concludes that Sure-Tan simply meant what it said, i. e., that any alien who is “not lawfully entitled to be present and employed in the United States” cannot claim backpay. See Del Rey Tortilleria, Inc. v. NLRB, 976 F. 2d 1115, 1118-1121 (CA7 1992); Brief for Petitioner 7-20. We need not resolve this controversy. For whether isolated sentences from Sure-Tan definitively control, or count merely as persuasive dicta in support of petitioner, we think the question presented here better analyzed through a wider lens, focused as it must be on a legal landscape now significantly changed.

The Southern S. S. Co. line of cases established that where the Board’s chosen remedy trenches upon a federal statute or policy outside the Board’s competence to administer, the Board’s remedy may be required to yield. Whether or not this was the situation at the time of Sure-Tan, it is precisely the situation today. In 1986, two years after Sure-Tan, Congress enacted IRCA, a comprehensive scheme prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens in the United States. § 101(a)(1), 100 Stat. 3360, 8 U. S. C. § 1324a. As we have previously noted, IRCA “forcefully” made combating the employment of illegal aliens central to “[t]he policy of immigration law.” INS v. National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc., 502 U. S. 183, 194, and n. 8 (1991). It did so by establishing an extensive “employment verification system,” § 1324a(a)(l), designed to deny employment to aliens who (a) are not lawfully present in the United States, or (b) are not lawfully authorized to work in the United States, § 1324a(h)(3) This verification system is critical to the IRCA regime. To enforce it, IRCA mandates that employers verify the identity and eligibility of all new hires by examining specified documents before they begin work. §1324a(b). If an alien applicant is unable to present the required documentation, the unauthorized alien cannot be hired. § 1324a(a)(l).

Similarly, if an employer unknowingly hires an unauthorized alien, or if the alien becomes unauthorized while employed, the employer is compelled to discharge the worker upon discovery of the worker’s undocumented status. § 1324a(a)(2). Employers who violate IRCA are punished by civil fines, § 1324a(e)(4)(A), and may be subject to criminal prosecution, § 1324a(f)(l). IRCA also makes it a crime for an unauthorized alien to subvert the employer verification system by tendering fraudulent documents. § 1324c(a). It thus prohibits aliens from using or attempting to use “any forged, counterfeit, altered, or falsely made document” or “any document lawfully issued to or with respect to a person other than the possessor” for purposes of obtaining employment in the United States. §§ 1324c(a)(l)-(3). Aliens who use or attempt to use such documents are subject to fines and criminal prosecution. 18 U. S. C. § 1546(b). There is no dispute that Castro’s use of false documents to obtain employment with Hoffman violated these provisions.

Under the IRCA regime, it is impossible for an undocumented alien to obtain employment in the United States without some party directly contravening explicit congressional policies. Either the undocumented alien tenders fraudulent identification, which subverts the cornerstone of IRCA’s enforcement mechanism, or the employer knowingly hires the undocumented alien in direct contradiction of its IRCA obligations. The Board asks that we overlook this fact and allow it to award backpay to an illegal alien for years of work not performed, for wages that could not lawfully have been earned, and for a job obtained in the first instance by a criminal fraud. We find, however, that awarding backpay to illegal aliens runs counter to policies underlying IRCA, policies the Board has no authority to enforce or administer. Therefore, as we have consistently held in like circumstances, the award lies beyond the bounds of the Board’s remedial discretion.

The Board contends that awarding limited backpay to Castro “reasonably accommodates” IRCA, because, in the Board’s view, such an award is not “inconsistent” with IRCA. Brief for Respondent 29-42. The Board argues that because the backpay period was closed as of the date Hoffman learned of Castro’s illegal status, Hoffman could have employed Castro during the backpay period without violating IRCA. Id., at 37. The Board further argues that while IRCA criminalized the misuse of documents, “it did not make violators ineligible for back pay awards or other compensation flowing from employment secured by the misuse of such documents.” Id., at 38. This latter statement, of course, proves little: The mutiny statute in 'Southern S. S. Co., and the INA in Sure-Tan, were likewise understandably silent with respect to such things as backpay awards under the NLRA. What matters here, and what sinks both of the Board’s claims, is that Congress has expressly made it criminally punishable for an alien to obtain employment with false documents. There is no reason to think that Congress nonetheless intended to permit backpay where but for an employer’s unfair labor practices, an alien-employee would have remained in the United States illegally, and continued to work illegally, all the while successfully evading apprehension by immigration authorities. Far from “accommodating” IRCA, the Board’s position, recognizing employer misconduct but discounting the misconduct of illegal alien employees, subverts it.

Indeed, awarding backpay in a case like this not only trivializes the immigration laws, it also condones and encourages future violations. The Board admits that had the INS detained Castro, or had Castro obeyed the law and departed to Mexico, Castro would have lost his right to backpay. See Brief for Respondent 7-8 (citing A. P. R. A. Fuel Oil Buyers Group, Inc., 320 N. L. R. B., at 416). Cf. INS v. National Center for Immigrants’ Rights, Inc., 502 U. S., at 196, n. 11 (“[Undocumented aliens taken into custody are not entitled to work”) (construing 8 CFR § 103.6(a) (1991)). Castro thus qualifies for the Board’s award only by remaining inside the United States illegally. See, e. g., A. P. R. A. Fuel Buyers Group, 134 F. 3d, at 62, n. 4 (Jacobs, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“Considering that NLRB proceedings can span a whole decade, this is no small inducement to prolong illegal presence in the country”). Similarly, Castro cannot mitigate damages, a duty our cases require, see Sure- Tan, 467 U. S., at 901 (citing Seven-Up Bottling, 344 U. S., at 346; Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U. S. 177,198 (1941)), without triggering new IRCA violations, either by tendering false documents to employers or by finding employers willing to ignore IRCA and hire illegal workers. The Board here has failed to even consider this tension. See 326 N. L. R. B., at 1063, n. 10 (finding that Castro adequately mitigated damages through interim work with no mention of ALJ findings that Castro secured interim work with false documents).

We therefore conclude that allowing the Board to award backpay to illegal aliens would unduly trench upon explicit statutory prohibitions critical to federal immigration policy, as expressed in IRCA. It would encourage the successful evasion of apprehension by immigration authorities, condone prior violations of the immigration laws, and encourage future violations. However broad the Board’s discretion to fashion remedies when dealing only with the NLRA, it is not so unbounded as to authorize this sort of an award.

Lack of authority to award backpay does not mean that the employer gets off scot-free. The Board here has already imposed other significant sanctions against Hoffman — sanctions Hoffman does not challenge. See supra, at 140. These include orders that Hoffman cease and desist its violations of the NLRA, and that it conspicuously post a notice to employees setting forth their rights under the NLRA and detailing its prior unfair practices. 306 N. L. R. B., at 100-101. Hoffman will be subject to contempt proceedings should it fail to comply with these orders. NLRB v. Warren Co., 350 U. S. 107, 112-113 (1955) (Congress gave the Board civil contempt power to enforce compliance with the Board’s orders). We have deemed such “traditional remedies” sufficient to effectuate national labor policy regardless of whether the “spur and catalyst” of backpay accompanies them. Sure-Tan, 467 U. S., at 904. See also id., at 904, n. 13 (“This threat of contempt sanctions ... provides a significant deterrent against future violations of the [NLRA]”). As we concluded in Sure-Tan, “in light of the practical workings of the immigration laws,” any “perceived defieienc[y] in the NLRA’s existing remedial arsenal” must be “addressed by congressional action,” not the courts. Id., at 904. In light of IRCA, this statement is even truer today.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Breyer,

with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join,

dissenting.

I cannot agree that the backpay award before us “runs counter to,” or “trenches upon,” national immigration policy. Ante, at 147,149 (citing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)). As all the relevant agencies (including the Department of Justice) have told us, the National Labor Relations Board’s limited backpay order will not interfere with the implementation of immigration policy. Rather, it reasonably helps to deter unlawful activity that both labor laws and immigration laws seek to prevent. Consequently, the order is lawful. See ante, at 142 (recognizing “broad” scope of Board’s remedial authority).

* * *

The Court does not deny that the employer in this case dismissed an employee for trying to organize a union — a crude and obvious violation of the labor laws. See 29 U. S. C. § 158(a)(3) (1994 ed.); NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U. S. 393,398 (1983). And it cannot deny that the Board has especially broad discretion in choosing an appropriate remedy for addressing such violations. NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U. S. 575, 612, n. 32 (1969) (Board “draws on a fund of knowledge and expertise all its own, and its choice of remedy must therefore be given special respect by reviewing courts”). Nor can it deny that in such circumstances backpay awards serve critically important remedial purposes. NLRB v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., 396 U. S. 258, 263 (1969). Those purposes involve more than victim compensation; they also include deterrence, i. e., discouraging employers from violating the Nation’s labor laws. See ante, at 152 (recognizing the deterrent purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)); Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U. S. 888, 904, n. 13 (1984) (same).

Without the possibility of the deterrence that backpay provides, the Board can impose only future-oriented obligations upon law-violating employers — for it has no other weapons in its remedial arsenal. Ante, at 152. And in the absence of the backpay weapon, employers could conclude that they can violate the labor laws at least once with impunity. See A. P. R. A. Fuel Oil Buyers Group, Inc., 320 N. L. R. B. 408, 415, n. 38 (1995) (without potential backpay order employer might simply discharge employees who show interest in a union “secure in the knowledge” that only penalties were requirements “to cease and desist and post a notice”); cf. Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U. S. 168, 185 (1973); cf. also EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U. S. 279, 296, n. 11 (2002) (backpay award provides important incentive to report illegal employer conduct); Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 417-418 (1975) (“It is the reasonably certain prospect of a backpay award” that leads employers to “shun practices of dubious legality”). Hence the backpay remedy is necessary; it helps make labor law enforcement credible; it makes clear that violating the labor laws will not pay.

Where in the immigration laws can the Court find a “policy” that might warrant taking from the Board this critically important remedial power? Certainly not in any statutory language. The immigration statutes say that an employer may not knowingly employ an illegal alien, that an alien may not submit false documents, and that the employer must verify documentation. See 8 U. S. C. §§ 1324a(a)(l), 1324a(b); 18 U. S. C. § 1546(b)(1). They provide specific penalties, including criminal penalties, for violations. Ibid.; 8 U. S. C. §§ 1324a(e)(4), 1324a(f)(l). But the statutes’ language itself doe's not explicitly state how a violation is to effect the enforcement of other laws, such as the labor laws. What is to happen, for example, when an employer hires, or an alien works, in violation of these provisions? Must the alien forfeit all pay earned? May the employer ignore the labor laws? More to the point, may the employer violate those laws with impunity, at least once — secure in the knowledge that the Board cannot assess a monetary penalty? The immigration statutes’ language simply does not say.

Nor can the Court comfortably rest its conclusion upon the immigration laws’ purposes. For one thing, the general purpose of the immigration statute’s employment prohibition is to diminish the attractive force of employment, which like a “magnet” pulls illegal immigrants toward the United States. H. R. Rep. No. 99-682, pt. 1, p. 45 (1986). To permit the Board to award backpay could not significantly increase the strength of this magnetic force, for so speculative a future possibility could not realistically influence an individual’s decision to migrate illegally. See A. P. R. A. Fuel Oil Buyers Group, Inc., supra, at 410-415 (no significant influence from so speculative a factor); Patel v. Quality Inn South, 846 F. 2d 700, 704 (CA11 1988) (aliens enter the country “in the hope of getting a job,” not gaining “the protection of our labor laws”); Peterson v. Neme, 222 Va. 477, 482, 281 S. E. 2d 869, 872 (1981) (same); Arteaga v. Literski, 83 Wis. 2d 128, 132, 265 N. W. 2d 148, 150 (1978) (same); H. R. Rep. No. 99-682, at 45 (same).

To deny the Board the power to award backpay, however, might very well increase the strength of this magnetic force. That denial lowers the cost to the employer of an initial labor law violation (provided, of course, that the only victims are illegal aliens). It thereby increases the employer’s incentive to find and to hire illegal-alien employees. Were the Board forbidden to assess backpay against a knowing employer — a circumstance not before us today, see 237 F. 3d 639, 648 (CADC 2001) — this perverse economic incentive, which runs directly contrary to the immigration statute’s basic objective, would be obvious and serious. But even if limited to cases where the employer did not know of the employee’s status, the incentive may prove significant — for, as the Board has told us, the Court’s rule offers employers immunity in borderline cases, thereby encouraging them to take risks, i. e., to hire with a wink and a nod those potentially unlawful aliens whose unlawful employment (given the Court’s views) ultimately will lower the costs of labor law violations. See Brief for Respondent 30-32; Tr. of Oral Arg. 41, 47; cf. also General Accounting Office, Garment Industry: Efforts to Address the Prevalence and Conditions of Sweatshops 8 (GAO/ HEHS-95-29, Nov. 1994) (noting a higher incidence of labor violations in areas with large populations of undocumented aliens). The Court has recognized these considerations in stating that the labor laws must apply to illegal aliens in order to ensure that “there will be no advantage under the NLRA in preferring illegal aliens” and therefore there will be “fewer incentives for aliens themselves to enter.” Sure-Tan, supra, at 893-894. The Court today accomplishes the precise opposite.

The immigration law’s specific labor-law-related purposes also favor preservation, not elimination, of the Board’s back-pay powers. See A. P. R. A. Fuel Oil Buyers Group, Inc., supra, at 414 (immigration law seeks to combat the problem of aliens’ willingness to “work in substandard conditions and for starvation wages”); cf. also Sure-Tan, 467 U. S., at 893 (“[E]nforcement of the NLRA ... is compatible with the policies” of the Immigration and Nationality Act). As I just mentioned and as this Court has held, the immigration law foresees application of the Nation’s labor laws to protect “workers who are illegal immigrants.” Id., at 891-893; H. R. Rep. No. 99-682, at 58. And a policy of applying the labor laws must encompass a policy of enforcing the labor laws effectively. Otherwise, as Justice Kennedy once put the matter, “we would leave helpless the very persons who most need protection from exploitative employer practices.” NLRB v. Apollo Tire Co., 604 F. 2d 1180, 1184 (CA9 1979) (concurring opinion). That presumably is why those in Congress who wrote the immigration statute stated explicitly and unequivocally that the immigration statute does not take from the Board any of its remedial authority. H. R. Rep. No. 99-682, at 58 (IRCA does not “undermine or diminish in any way labor protections in existing law, or . . . limit the powers of federal or state labor relations boards ... to remedy unfair practices committed against undocumented employees”).

Neither does precedent help the Court. Indeed, in ABF Freight System, Inc. v. NLRB, 510 U. S. 317 (1994), this Court upheld an award of backpay to an unlawfully discharged employee guilty of a serious crime, namely, perjury committed during the Board’s enforcement proceedings. Id., at 323. See also id., at 326-331 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment while stressing seriousness of misconduct). The Court unanimously held that the Board retained “broad discretion” to remedy the labor law violation through a back-pay award, while leaving enforcement of the criminal law to ordinary perjury-related civil and criminal penalties. See id., at 325; see also 18 U. S. C. § 1621 (criminal penalties for perjury).

The Court, trying to distinguish ABF Freight, says that the Court there left open “whether the Board could award backpay to an employee who engaged in ‘serious misconduct’ unrelated to internal Board proceedings.” Ante, at 146. But the Court does not explain why (assuming misconduct of equivalent seriousness) lack of a relationship to Board proceedings matters, nor why the Board should have to do more than take that misconduct into account — as it did here. 326 N. L. R. B. 1060,1060-1062 (1998) (thoroughly discussing relevance of immigration policies); see also A. P. R. A. Fuel Oil Buyers Group, Inc., 320 N. L. R. B., at 412-414 (same). The Court adds that the Board order in ABF Freight “did not implicate federal statutes or policies administered by other federal agencies.” Ante, at 146. But it does not explain why this matters when, as here, the Attorney General, whose Department — through the Immigration and Naturalization Service — administers the immigration statutes, supports the Board’s order. Nor does it explain why the perjury statute at issue in ABF Freight was not a “statute . .. administered by” another “agenc[y].” See 510 U. S., at 329 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (noting Department of Justice officials’ responsibility for prosecuting perjury).

The Court concludes that the employee misconduct at issue in ABF Freight, “though serious, was not at all analogous to misconduct that renders an underlying employment relationship illegal.” Ante, at 146. But this conclusion rests upon an implicit assumption — the assumption that the immigration laws’ ban on employment is not compatible with a backpay award. And that assumption, as I have tried to explain, is not justified. See supra, at 155-157.

At the same time, the two earlier cases upon which the Court relies, NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U. S. 240 (1939), and Southern S. S. Co. v. NLRB, 316 U. S. 31, 47 (1942), offer little support for its conclusion. The Court correctly characterizes both cases as ones in which this Court set aside the Board’s remedy (more specifically, reinstatement). Ante, at 142-144. But the Court does not focus upon the underlying circumstances — which in those cases were very different from the circumstances present here. In both earlier cases, the employer had committed an independent unfair labor practice — in the one by creating a company union, Fansteel, supra, at 250, in the other by refusing to recognize the employees’ elected representative, Southern S. S. Co., supra, at 32-36, 48-49. In both cases, the employees had responded with unlawful acts of their own — a sit-in and a mutiny. Fansteel, supra, at 252; Southern S. S. Co., supra, at 48. And in both cases, the Court held that the employees’ own unlawful conduct provided the employer with “good cause” for discharge, severing any connection to the earlier unfair labor practice that might otherwise have justified reinstatement and backpay. Fansteel, supra, at 254-259; Southern S. S. Co., supra, at 47-49.

By way of contrast, the present case concerns a discharge that was not for “good cause.” The discharge did not sever any connection with an unfair labor practice. Indeed, the discharge was the unfair labor practice. Hence a determination that backpay was inappropriate in the former circumstances (involving a justifiable discharge) tells us next to nothing about the appropriateness as a legal remedy in the latter (involving an mjustifiable discharge), the circumstances present here.

The Court also refers to the statement in Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U. S., at 903, that “employees must be deemed 'unavailable’ for work (and the accrual of backpay therefore tolled) during any period when they were not lawfully entitled to be present and employed in the United States.” The Court, however, does not rely upon this statement as determining its conclusion. See ante, at 146-147. And it is right not to do so. See Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U. S. 330, 341 (1979) (“[Ljanguage of an opinion” must be “read in context” and not “parsed” like a statute). Sure-Tan involved an order reinstating (with backpay) illegal aliens who had left the country and returned to Mexico. 467 U. S., at 888-889. In order to collect the backpay to which the order entitled them, the aliens would have had to reenter the country illegally. Consequently, the order itself could not have been enforced without leading to a violation of criminal law. Id., at 903. Nothing in the Court’s opinion suggests that the Court intended its statement to reach to circumstances different from and not at issue in Sure-Tan, where an order, such as the order before us, does not require the alien to engage in further illegal behavior.

Finally, the Court cannot reasonably rely upon the award’s negative features taken together. The Court summarizes those negative features when it says that the Board “asks that we ... award backpay to an illegal alien [1] for years of work not performed, [2] for wages that could not lawfully have been earned, and [3] for a job obtained in the first instance by a criminal fraud.” Ante, at 148-149. The first of these features has little persuasive force, given the facts that (1) backpay ordinarily and necessarily is awarded to a discharged employee who may not find other work, and (2) the Board is able to tailor an alien’s backpay award to avoid rewarding that alien for his legal inability to mitigate damages by obtaining lawful employment elsewhere. See, e. g., Sure-Tan, supra, at 901-902, n. 11 (basing backpay on “representative employee”); A. P. R. A. Fuel, 320 N. L. R. B., at 416 (providing backpay for reasonable period); 326 N. L. R. B., at 1062 (cutting off backpay when employer learned of unlawful status).

Neither can the remaining two features — unlawfully earned wages and criminal fraud — prove determinative, for they tell us only a small portion of the relevant story. After all, the same backpay award that compensates an employee in the circumstances the Court describes also requires an employer who has violated the labor laws to make a meaningful monetary payment. Considered from this equally important perspective, the award simply requires that employer to pay an employee whom the employer believed could lawfully have worked in the United States, (1) for years of work that he would have performed, (2) for a portion of the wages that he would have earned, and (3) for a job that the employee would have held — had that employer not unlawfully dismissed the employee for union organizing. In ignoring these latter features of the award, the Court undermines the public policies that underlie the Nation’s labor laws.

Of course, the Court believes it is necessary to do so in order to vindicate what it sees as conflicting immigration law policies. I have explained why I believe the latter policies do not conflict. See supra, at 155-157. But even were I wrong, the law requires the Court to respect the Board’s conclusion, rather than to substitute its own independent view of the matter for that of the Board. The Board reached its conclusion after carefully considering both labor law and immigration law. 326 N. L. R. B., at 1060-1062; see A. P. R. A. Fuel Oil Buyers Group, Inc., supra, at 412-414. In doing so the Board has acted “with a discriminating awareness of the consequences of its action” on the immigration laws. Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U. S. 156, 174 (1962). The Attorney General, charged with immigration law enforcement, has told us that the Board is right. See 8 U. S. C. § 1324a(e) (Immigration and Naturalization Service placed within the Department of Justice, under authority of Attorney General who is charged with responsibility for immigration law enforcement); cf. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 258-259, n. 6 (2001) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (Solicitor General’s statements represent agency’s position); Jean v. Nelson, 472 U. S. 846, 856, and n. 3 (1985) (agency’s position with respect to its regulation during litigation “arrives with some authority”). And the Board’s position is, at the least, a reasonable one. Consequently, it is lawful. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843 (1984) (requiring courts to uphold reasonable agency position).

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

       Section 8(a)(3) of the NLRA prohibits discrimination “in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.” 49 Stat. 452, as added, 61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. § 158(a)(3).

       The Courts of Appeals have divided on the question whether the Board may award backpay to undocumented workers. Compare NLRB v. A. P. R. A. Fuel Oil Buyers Group, Inc., 134 F. 3d 50, 56 (CA2 1997) (holding that illegal workers could collect backpay under the NLRA), and Local 512, Warehouse and Office Workers’ Union v. NLRB, 795 F. 2d 705, 719-720 (CA9 1986) (same), with Del Rey Tortilleria, Inc. v. NLRB, 976 F. 2d 1115, 1121-1122 (CA7 1992) (holding that illegal workers could not collect backpay under the NLRA). The question has a checkered career before the Board, as well. Compare Felbro, Inc., 274 N. L. R. B. 1268, 1269 (1985) (illegal workers could not be awarded backpay in light of Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U. S. 883 (1984)), with A. P. R. A. Fuel Oil Buyers Group, Inc., 320 N. L. R. B. 408, 415 (1995) (illegal workers could be awarded backpay notwithstanding Sure-Tan)-, Memorandum GC 87-8 from Office of General Counsel, NLRB, The Impact of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 on Board Remedies for Undocumented Discriminatees, 1987 WL 109409 (Oct. 27, 1988) (stating Board policy that illegal workers could not be awarded backpay in light of IRCA), with Memorandum GC 98-15 from Office of General Counsel, NLRB, Reinstatement and Backpay Remedies for Discriminatees Who May Be Undocumented Aliens In Light of Recent Board and Court Precedent, 1998 WL 1806350 (Dec. 4, 1998) (stating Board policy that illegal workers could be awarded backpay notwithstanding IRCA).

       For an alien to be “authorized” to work in the United States, he or she must possess “a valid social security account number card,” § 1324a(b)(C)(i), or “other documentation evidencing authorization of employment in the United States which the Attorney General finds, by regulation, to be acceptable for purposes of this section,” § 1324a(b)(C)(ii). See also § 1324a(h)(3)(B) (defining “unauthorized alien” as any alien “[not] authorized to be so employed by this chapter or by the Attorney General”). Regulations implementing these provisions are set forth at 8 CFR § 274a (2001).

       Justice Breyer contends otherwise, pointing to a single Committee Report from one House of a politically divided Congress, post, at 157 (dissenting opinion) (citing H. R. Rep. No. 99-682, pt. 1 (1986)), which is a rather slender reed, e. g., Bank One Chicago, N. A. v. Midwest Bank & Trust Co., 516 U. S. 264, 279 (1996) (Scaua, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Even assuming that a Committee Report can shed light on what Congress intended in IRCA, the Report cited by Justice Breyer says nothing about the Board’s authority to award backpay to illegal aliens. The Board in fact initially read the Report as stating Congress’ view that such awards are foreclosed. Memorandum GC 88-9 from Office of General Counsel, NLRB, Reinstatement and Backpay Remedies for Discriminatees Who Are “Undocumented Aliens,” 1988 WL 236182, *3 (Sept. 1, 1988) (“[T]he relevant committee report points out [that] Sure-Tan was the existing law and that decision itself limited the remedial powers of the NLRB. Clearly, Congress did not intend to overrule Sure-Tan”). Other courts have observed that the Report “merely endorses the first holding of Sure-Tan that undocumented aliens are employees within the meaning of the NLRA.” Del Rey Tortilleria, Inc., 976 F. 2d, at 1121 (citation omitted). Our first holding in Sure-Tan is not at issue here and does not bear at all on the scope of Board remedies with respect to undocumented workers.

       When questioned at oral argument about the tension between affirmative mitigation duties under the NLRA and explicit prohibitions against employment of illegal aliens in IRCA, the Government candidly stated: “[T]he board has not examined this issue in detail.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 32. Justice Breyer says that we should nonetheless defer to the Government’s view that the Board’s remedy is entirely consistent with IRCA. Post, at 161 (dissenting opinion). But such deference would be contrary to Southern S. S. Co. v. NLRB, 316 U. S. 31, 40-46 (1942), where the Government told us that the Board’s remedy was entirely consistent with the federal maritime laws, and NLRB v. Bildisco & Bildisco, 465 U. S. 513, 529-532 (1984), where the Government told us that the Board’s remedy was entirely consistent with the Bankruptcy Code, and Sure-Tan, 467 U. S., at 892-894,902-905, where the Government told us that the Board’s remedy was entirely consistent with the INA. See also Carpenters v. NLRB, 357 U. S. 93, 108-110 (1958) (rejecting Government position that we should defer to the Board’s interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Act). We did not defer to the Government’s position in any of these cases, and there is even less basis for doing so here since IRCA — unlike the maritime statutes, the Bankruptcy Code, or the INA — not only speaks directly to matters of employment but expressly criminalizes the only employment relationship at issue in this case.

       Because the Board is precluded from imposing punitive remedies, Republic Steel Corp. v. NLRB, 311 U. S. 7, 9-12 (1940), it is an open question whether awarding backpay to undocumented aliens, who have no entitlement to work in the United States at all, might constitute a prohibited punitive remedy against an employer. See Del Rey Tortilleria, Inc. v. NLRB, 976 F. 2d, at 1119 (finding that undocumented workers discharged in violation of the NLRA have not been harmed in a legal sense and should not be entitled to backpay, because the “ ‘award provisions of the NLRA are remedial, not punitive, in nature, and thus should be awarded only to those individuals who have suffered harm’”) (quoting Local 512, Warehouse and Office Workers Union v. NLRB, 795 F. 2d, at 725 (Beezer, J., dissenting in part)). Because we find the remedy foreclosed on other grounds, we do not address whether the award at issue here is “ ‘punitive’ and hence beyond the authority of the Board.” Sure-Tan, supra, at 905, n. 14.