source: Caselaw Access Project

author:
      Justice Breyer
      Justice Stevens,

license: Public Domain

text:
    UNITED STATES v. JIMENEZ RECIO et al.
    No. 01-1184.
    Argued November 12, 2002
    Decided January 21, 2003

      Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 278.

      Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General Chertoff, James A. Feldman, and Jonathan L. Marcus.

      M. Karl Shurtliff argued the cause for respondents and filed a brief for respondent Jimenez Recio. Thomas A. Sullivan filed a brief for respondent Lopez-Meza.

        Jay Alan Sekulow, Stuart J. Roth, Colby M. May, Joel H. Thornton, John P. Tuskey, and Shannon D. Woodruff filed a brief for the American Center for Law and Justice et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.

   Justice Breyer

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We here consider the validity of a Ninth Circuit rule that a conspiracy ends automatically when the object of the conspiracy becomes impossible to achieve — when, for example, the Government frustrates a drug conspiracy’s objective by seizing the drugs that its members have agreed to distribute. In our view, conspiracy law does not contain any such “automatic termination” rule.

I

In United States v. Cruz, 127 F. 3d 791, 795 (CA9 1997), the Ninth Circuit, following the language of an earlier case, United States v. Castro, 972 F. 2d 1107, 1112 (CA9 1992), wrote that a conspiracy terminates when “ ‘there is affirmative evidence of abandonment, withdrawal, disavowal or defeat of the object" of the conspiracy.’” (Emphasis added.) It considered the conviction of an individual who, the Government had charged, joined a conspiracy (to distribute drugs) after the Government had seized the drugs in question. The Circuit found that the Government’s seizure of the drugs guaranteed the “defeat” of the conspiracy’s objective, namely, drug distribution. The Circuit held that the conspiracy had terminated with that “defeat,” i. e., when the Government seized the drugs. Hence the individual, who had joined the conspiracy after that point, could not be convicted as a conspiracy member.

In this case the lower courts applied the Cruz rule to similar facts: On November 18, 1997, police stopped a truck in Nevada. They found, and seized, a large stash of illegal drugs. With the help of the truck’s two drivers, they set up a sting. The Government took the truck to the drivers’ destination, a mall in Idaho. The drivers paged a contact and described the truck’s location. The contact said that he would call someone to get the truck. And three hours later, the two defendants, Francisco Jimenez Recio and Adrian Lopez-Meza, appeared in a car. Jimenez Recio drove away in the truck; Lopez-Meza drove the car away in a similar direction. Police stopped both vehicles and arrested both men.

A federal grand jury indicted Jimenez Recio, Lopez-Meza, and the two original truck drivers, charging them with having conspired, together and with others, to possess and to distribute unlawful drugs. A jury convicted all four. But the trial judge then decided that the jury instructions had been erroneous in respect to Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza. The judge noted that the Ninth Circuit, in Cruz, had held that the Government could not prosecute drug conspiracy defendants unless they had joined the conspiracy before the Government seized the drugs. See Cruz, supra, at 795-796. That holding, as applied here, meant that the jury could not convict Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza unless the jury believed they had joined the conspiracy before the Nevada police stopped the truck and seized the drugs. The judge ordered a new trial where the jury would be instructed to that effect. The new jury convicted the two men once again.

Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza appealed. They pointed out that, given Cruz, the jury had to find that they had joined the conspiracy before the Nevada stop, and they claimed that the evidence was insufficient at both trials to warrant any such jury finding. The Ninth Circuit panel, by a vote of 2 to 1, agreed. All three panel members accepted Cruz as binding law. Two members concluded that the evidence presented at the second trial was not sufficient to show that the defendants had joined the conspiracy before the Nevada drug seizure. One of the two wrote that the evidence at the first trial was not sufficient either, a circumstance she believed independently warranted reversal. The third member, dissenting, believed that the evidence at both trials adequately demonstrated preseizure membership. He added that he, like the other panel members, was bound by Cruz, but he wrote that in his view Cruz was “totally inconsistent with long established and appropriate principles of the law of conspiracy,” and he urged the Circuit to overrule it en banc “at the earliest opportunity.” 258 F. 3d 1069, 1079, n. 2 (2001) (opinion of Gould, J.).

The Government sought certiorari. It noted that the Ninth Circuit’s holding in this case was premised upon the legal rule enunciated in Cruz. And it asked us to decide the rule’s validity, i. e., to decide whether “a conspiracy ends as a matter of law when the government frustrates its objective.” Pet. for Cert. (I). We agreed to consider that question.

II

In Cruz, the Ninth Circuit held that a conspiracy continues “‘until there is affirmative evidence of abandonment, withdrawal, disavowal or defeat of the object of the conspiracy.’ ” 127 F. 3d, at 795 (quoting Castro, supra, at 1112). The critical portion of this statement is the last segment, that a conspiracy ends once there has been “‘defeat of [its] object.’” The Circuit’s holdings make clear that the phrase means that the conspiracy ends through “defeat” when the Government intervenes, making the conspiracy’s goals impossible to achieve, even if the conspirators do not know that the Gov: ernment has intervened and are totally unaware that the conspiracy is bound to fail. In our view, this statement of the law is incorrect. A conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the Government, unbeknownst to some of the conspirators, has “defeated]” the conspiracy’s “object.”

Two basic considerations convince us that this is the proper view of the law. First, the Ninth Circuit’s rule is inconsistent with our own understanding of basic conspiracy law. The Court has repeatedly said that the essence of a conspiracy is “an agreement to commit an unlawful act.” Iannelli v. United States, 420 U. S. 770, 777 (1975); see United States v. Shabani, 513 U. S. 10, 16 (1994); Braverman v. United States, 317 U. S. 49, 53 (1942). That agreement is “a distinct evil,” which “may exist and be punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues.” Salinas v. United States, 522 U. S. 52, 65 (1997). The conspiracy poses a “threat to the public” over and above the threat of the commission of the relevant substantive crime — both because the “[combination in crime makes more likely the commission of [other] crimes” and because it “decreases the probability that the individuals involved will depart from their path of criminality.” Callanan v. United States, 364 U. S. 587, 593-594 (1961); see also United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U. S. 78, 88 (1915) (conspiracy “sometimes quite outweigh[s], in injury to the public, the mere commission of the contemplated crime”). Where police have frustrated a conspiracy’s specific objective but conspirators (unaware of that fact) have neither abandoned the conspiracy nor withdrawn, these special conspiracy-related dangers remain. Cf. 2 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 6.5, p. 85 (1986) (“[impossibility” does not terminate conspiracy because “criminal combinations are dangerous apart from the danger of attaining the particular objective”). So too remains the essence of the conspiracy — the agreement to commit the crime. That being so, the Government’s defeat of the conspiracy’s objective will not necessarily and automatically terminate the conspiracy.

Second, the view we endorse today is the view of almost all courts and commentators but for the Ninth Circuit. No other Federal Court of Appeals has adopted the Ninth Circuit’s rule. Three have explicitly rejected it. In United States v. Wallace, 85 F. 3d 1063, 1068 (CA2 1996), for example, the court said that the fact that a “conspiracy cannot actually be realized because of facts unknown to the conspirators is irrelevant.” See also United States v. Belardo-Quiñones, 71 F. 3d 941, 944 (CA1 1995) (conspiracy exists even if, unbeknownst to conspirators, crime is impossible to commit); United States v. LaBudda, 882 F. 2d 244, 248 (CA7 1989) (defendants can be found guilty of conspiracy even if conspiracy’s object “is unattainable from the very beginning”). One treatise, after surveying lower court conspiracy decisions, has concluded that “[impossibility of success is not a defense.” 2 LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law §6.5, at 85; see also id., § 6.5(b), at 90-93. And the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code §5.03, p. 384 (1985), would find that a conspiracy “terminates when the crime or crimes that are its object are committed” or when the relevant “agreement ... is abandoned.” It would not find “impossibility” a basis for termination.

The Cruz majority argued that the more traditional termination rule threatened “endless” potential liability. To illustrate the point, the majority posited a sting in which police instructed an arrested conspirator to go through the “telephone directory . . . [and] call all of his acquaintances” to come and help him, with the Government obtaining convictions of those who did so. 127 F. 3d, at 795, n. 3. The problem with this example, however, is that, even though it is not necessarily an example of entrapment itself, it draws its persuasive force from the fact that it bears certain resemblances to entrapment. The law independently forbids convictions that rest upon entrapment. See Jacobson v. United States, 503 U. S. 540, 548-549 (1992); Sorrells v. United States, 287 U. S. 435, 442-445 (1932). And the example fails to explain why a different branch of the law, conspiracy law, should be modified to forbid entrapment-like behavior that falls outside the bounds of current entrapment law. Cf. United States v. Russell, 411 U. S. 423, 435 (1973) (“defense of entrapment . . . not intended to give the federal judiciary ... veto” over disapproved “law enforcement practices”). At the same time, the Cruz rule would reach well beyond arguable police misbehavior, potentially threatening the use of properly run law enforcement sting operations. See Lewis v. United States, 385 U. S. 206, 208-209 (1966) (Government may “use decoys” and conceal agents’ identity); see also M. Lyman, Criminal Investigation 484-485 (2d ed. 1999) (explaining the importance of undercover operations in enforcing drug laws).

In tracing the origins of the statement of conspiracy law upon which the Cruz panel relied, we have found a 1982 Ninth Circuit case, United States v. Bloch, 696 F. 2d 1213, in which the court, referring to an earlier case, United States v. Krasn, 614 F. 2d 1229 (CA9 1980), changed the language of the traditional conspiracy termination rule. Krasn said that a conspiracy is “‘presumed to continue unless there is affirmative evidence that the defendant abandoned, withdrew from, or disavowed the conspiracy or defeated its purpose.’” Id., at 1236 (emphasis added). The Bloch panel changed the grammatical structure. It said that “a conspiracy is presumed to continue until there is .. . defeat of the purposes of the conspiracy.” 696 F. 2d, at 1215 (emphasis added). Later Ninth Circuit cases apparently read the change to mean that a conspiracy terminates, not only when the defendant defeats its objective, but also when someone else defeats that objective, perhaps the police. In Castro, the panel followed Bloch. 972 F. 2d, at 1112. In Cruz, the panel quoted Castro. 127 F. 3d, at 795. This history may help to explain the origin of the Cruz rule. But, since the Circuit’s earlier eases nowhere give any reason for the critical change of language, they cannot help to justify

III

We conclude that the Ninth Circuit’s conspiracy-termination law holding set forth in Cruz is erroneous in the manner discussed. We reverse the present judgment insofar as it relies upon that holding. Because Jimenez Recio and Lopez-Meza have raised other arguments not here considered, we remand the case, specifying that the Court of Appeals may consider those arguments, if they were properly raised.

The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

In accordance with United States v. Cruz, 127 F. 3d 791, 795-796 (CA9 1997), the District Judge charged the jury with the following instruction:

“A defendant may only be found guilty of the conspiracy charged in the indictment if he joined the conspiracy at a time when it was possible to achieve the objective of that conspiracy.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 75a-76a.

For the reasons stated in the Court’s opinion, that instruction was erroneous.

My reason for not joining the Court’s opinion without qualification is procedural. The relevant Rule in effect at the time of this trial provided: “No party may assign as error any portion of the charge or omission therefrom unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which that party objects and the grounds of the objection.” Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 30 (1988). The Government neither objected to the erroneous instruction at trial, nor bothered to question the validity of the Cruz decision on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Although the Government did challenge Cruz in its petition for rehearing en banc, in my judgment that challenge came too late to preserve the question the Court decides today. Cf. United States v. Williams, 504 U. S. 36, 56-60 (1992) (Stevens, J., dissenting). The prosecutor, like the defendant, should be required to turn square corners.

      Indeed, the Government embraced the flawed Cruz rule in its closing argument to the jury:
      “So, in summary, assuming that you find that this conspiracy simply encompassed the one load, in order for each defendant to be found guilty, what must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt? That there was a drug conspiracy; number 2, it was limited to just the one load that was seized; the defendant joined that conspiracy, became involved in the conspiracy; the defendant joined or beeame involved before the narcotics were seized .... If one of those elements is missing, you must acquit. That’s the burden that’s placed on the United States, one that we willingly accept.” App. to Brief in Opposition 34a (emphases added).


author: Justice Breyer

text:
    MEYER v. HOLLEY et al.
    No. 01-1120.
    Argued December 3, 2002
    Decided January 22, 2003

      Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Douglas G. Benedon argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Gerald M. Serlin.

      Robert G. Schwemm argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Elizabeth Brancart, Christopher Brancart, and Greg Alexanian.

      Malcolm L. Stewart argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General Boyd, Deputy Solicitor General Clement, and David K. Flynn.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the California Association of Realtors by June Babiracki Barlow and Neil Kalin; for the National Association of Home Builders by Christopher G. Senior; and for the National Association of Realtors by Laurene K. Janik and Ralph W. Holmen.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the International Association of Official Human Rights Agencies by Bruce V. Spiva and Jessie K. Liu; and for the National Fair Housing Alliance et al. by John P. Reiman, Meera Trehan, and Virginia A Seitz.

   Justice Breyer

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Fair Housing Act forbids racial discrimination in respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling. 82 Stat. 81, 42 U. S. C. §§ 3604(b), 3605(a). The question before us is whether the Act imposes personal liability without fault upon an officer or owner of a residential real estate corporation for the unlawful activity of the corporation’s employee or agent. We conclude that the Act imposes liability without fault upon the employer in accordance with traditional agency principles, i. e., it normally imposes vicarious liability upon the corporation but not upon its officers or owners.

I

For purposes of this decision we simplify the background facts as follows: Respondents Emma Mary Ellen Holley and David Holley, an interracial couple, tried to buy a house in Twenty-Nine Palms, California. A real estate corporation, Triad, Inc., had listed the house for sale. Grove Crank, a Triad salesman, is alleged to have prevented the Holleys from obtaining the house — and for racially discriminatory reasons.

The Holleys brought a lawsuit in federal court against Crank and Triad. They claimed, among other things, that both were responsible for a fair housing law violation. The Holleys later filed a separate suit against David Meyer, the petitioner here. Meyer, they said, was Triad’s president, Triad’s sole shareholder, and Triad’s licensed “officer/ broker,” see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 10, §2740 (1996) (formerly Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 10, §2740) (requiring that a corporation, in order to engage in acts for which a real estate license is required, designate one of its officers to act as the licensed broker); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Ann. §§ 10158, 10159, 10211 (West 1987). They claimed that Meyer was vicariously liable in one or more of these capacities for Crank’s unlawful actions.

The District Court consolidated the two lawsuits. It dismissed all claims other than the Fair Housing Act claim on statute of limitations grounds. It dismissed the claims against Meyer in his capacity as officer of Triad because (1) it considered those claims as assertions of vicarious liability, and (2) it believed that the Fair Housing Act did not impose personal vicarious liability upon a corporate officer. The District Court stated that “any liability against Meyer as an officer of Triad would only attach to Triad,” the corporation. App. 31. The court added that the Holleys had “not urged theories that could justify reaching Meyer individually.” Ibid. It later went on to dismiss for similar reasons claims of vicarious liability against Meyer in his capacity as the “designated officer/broker” in respect to Triad’s real estate license. Id., at 52-55.

The District Court certified its judgment as final to permit the Holleys to appeal its vicarious liability determinations. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 64(b). The Ninth Circuit reversed those determinations. 258 F. 3d 1127 (2001). The Court of Appeals recognized that “under general principles of tort law corporate shareholders and officers usually are not held vicariously liable for an employee’s action,” but, in its view, “the criteria for the Fair Housing Act” are “different.” Id., at 1129. That Act, it said, “specified” liability “for those who direct or control or have the right to direct or control the conduct of another” — even if they were not at all involved in the discrimination itself and even in the absence of any traditional agent/principal or employee/employer relationship, id., at 1129, 1131. Meyer, in his capacity as Triad’s sole owner, had “the authority to control the acts” of a Triad salesperson. Id., at 1133. Meyer, in his capacity as Triad’s officer, “did direct or control, or had the right to direct or control, the conduct” of a Triad salesperson. Ibid. And even if Meyer neither participated in nor authorized the discrimination in question, that “control” or “authority to control” is “enough ... to hold Meyer personally liable.” Ibid. The Ninth Circuit added that, for similar reasons, Meyer, in his capacity as Triad’s license-related officer/broker, was vicariously liable for Crank’s discriminatory activity. Id., at 1134-1135.

Meyer sought certiorari. We granted his petition, 535 U. S. 1077 (2002), to review the Ninth Circuit’s holding that the Fair Housing Act imposes principles of strict liability beyond those traditionally associated with agent/principal or employee/employer relationships. We agreed to decide whether “the criteria under the Fair Housing Act . . . are different, so that owners and officers of corporations” are automatically and “absolutely liable for an employee’s or agent’s violation of the Act” — even if they did not direct or authorize, and were otherwise not involved in, the unlawful discriminatory acts. Pet. for Cert. i.

II

The Fair Housing Act itself focuses on prohibited acts. In relevant part the Act forbids “any person or other entity whose business includes engaging in residential real estate-related transactions to discriminate,” for example, because of “race.” 42 U. S. C. § 3605(a). It adds that “[p]erson” includes, for example, individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, labor unions, and other organizations. § 3602(d). It says nothing about vicarious liability.

Nonetheless, it is well established that the Act provides for vicarious liability. This Court has noted that an action brought for compensation by a victim of housing discrimination is, in effect, a tort action. See Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 195-196 (1974). And the Court has assumed that, when Congress creates a tort action, it legislates against a legal background of ordinary tort-related vicarious liability rules and consequently intends its legislation to incorporate those rules. Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U. S. 687, 709 (1999) (listing this Court’s precedents that interpret Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, in which Congress created “a species of tort liability,” “in light of the background of tort liability” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Cf. Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U. S. 104, 108 (1991) (“Congress is understood to legislate against a background of common-law... principles”); United States v. Texas, 507 U. S. 529, 534 (1993) (“In order to abrogate a common-law principle, the statute must ‘speak directly’ to the question addressed by the common law”).

It is well established that traditional vicarious liability rules ordinarily make principals or employers vicariously liable for acts of their agents or employees in the scope of their authority or employment. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742, 756 (1998) (“An employer may be liable for both negligent and intentional torts committed by an employee within the scope of his or her employment”); New Orleans, M., & C. R. Co. v. Hanning, 15 Wall. 649, 657 (1873) (“The principal is liable for the acts and negligence of the agent in the course of his employment, although he did not authorize or did not know of the acts complained of”); see Rosenthal & Co. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 802 F. 2d 963, 967 (CA7 1986) (“ ‘respondeat superior’... is a doctrine about employers . . . and other principals”); Restatement (Second) of Agency §219(1) (1957) (Restatement). And in the absence of special circumstances it is the corporation, not its owner or officer, who is the principal or employer, and thus subject to vicarious liability for torts committed by its employees or agents. 3A W. Fletcher, Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations §1137, pp. 300-301 (rev. ed. 1991-1994); 10 id., §4877 (rev. ed. 1997-2001). The Restatement §1 specifies that the relevant principal/agency relationship demands not only control (or the right to direct or control) but also “the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf..., and consent by the other so to act.” (Emphasis added.) A corporate employee typically acts on behalf of the corporation, not its owner or officer.

The Ninth Circuit held that the Fair Housing Act imposed more extensive vicarious liability — that the Act went well beyond traditional principles. The Court of Appeals held that the Act made corporate owners and officers liable for the unlawful acts of a corporate employee simply on the basis that the owner or officer controlled (or had the right to control) the actions of that employee. We do not agree with the Ninth Circuit that the Act extended traditional vicarious liability rules in this way.

For one thing, Congress said nothing in the statute or in the legislative history about extending vicarious liability in this manner. And Congress’ silence, while permitting an inference that Congress intended to apply ordinary background tort principles, cannot show that it intended to apply an unusual modification of those rules.

Where Congress, in other civil rights statutes, has not expressed a contrary intent, the Court has drawn the inference that it intended ordinary rules to apply. See, e. g., Burlington Industries, Inc., supra, at 754-755 (deciding an employer’s vicarious liability under Title VII based on traditional agency principles); Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 417 U. S. 57, 72 (1986) (“Congress wanted courts to look to agency principles for guidance”).

This Court has applied unusually strict rules only where Congress has specified that such was its intent. See, e. g., United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U. S. 277, 280-281 (1943) (Congress intended that a corporate officer or employee “standing in responsible relation” could be held liable in that capacity for a corporation’s violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1040, 21 U. S. C. §§301-392); United States v. Park, 421 U. S. 658, 673 (1975) (discussing, with respect to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, congressional intent to impose a duty on “responsible corporate agents”); United States v. Wise, 370 U. S. 405, 411-414 (1962) (discussing 38 Stat. 736, currently 15 U. S. C. § 24, which provides: “[W]henever a corporation shall violate any of the ... antitrust laws, such violation shall be deemed to be also that of the individual directors, officers, or agents of such corporation who shall have authorized, ordered, or done any of the acts constituting in whole or in part such violation”); see also 46 U. S. C. § 12507(d) (“If a person, not an individual, is involved in a violation [relating to a vessel identification system], the president or chief executive of the person also is subject to any penalty provided under this section”).

For another thing, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the federal agency primarily charged with the implementation and administration of the statute, 42 U. S. C. § 3608, has specified that ordinary vicarious liability rules apply in this area. And we ordinarily defer to an administering agency’s reasonable interpretation of a statute. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-845 (1984); Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U. S. 134, 140 (1944).

A HUD regulation applicable during the relevant time periods for this suit provided that analogous administrative complaints alleging Fair Housing Act violations may be filed

“against any person who directs or controls, or has the right to direct or control, the conduct of another person with respect to any aspect of the sale ... of dwellings ... if that other person, acting within the scope of his or her authority as employee or agent of the directing or controlling person . . . has engaged ... in a discriminatory housing practice.” 24 CFR § 103.20(b) (1999) (repealed) (emphasis added).

See Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91, 107 (1979) (treating administrative actions under 42 U. S. C. § 3610 and civil actions under § 3613 as alternative, but parallel, proceedings).

When it adopted the similar predecessor to this regulation (then codified at 24 CFR §105.13, see 53 Fed. Reg. 24185 (1988)), HUD explained that it intended to permit a “respondent” (defined at 42 U. S. C. §3602) to raise in an administrative proceeding any defense “that could be raised in court.” 53 Fed. Reg., at 24185. It added that the underscored phrase was designed to make clear that “a complaint may be filed against a directing or controlling person with respect to the discriminatory acts of another only if the other person was acting within the scope of his or her authority as employee or agent of the directing or controlling person.” Ibid, (emphasis added). HUD also specified that, by adding the words “acting within the scope of his or her authority as employee or agent of the directing or controlling person,” it disclaimed any “intent to impose absolute liability” on the basis of the mere right “to direct or control.” Ibid.; see 54 Fed. Reg. 3232, 3261 (1989).

Finally, we have found no convincing argument in support of the Ninth Circuit’s decision to apply nontraditional vicarious liability principles — a decision that respondents do not defend and in fact concede is incorrect. See Brief for Respondents 6, 10-11, 43 (conceding that traditional vicarious liability rules apply); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 8, 22. The Ninth Circuit rested that decision primarily upon the HUD regulation to which we have referred. The Ninth Circuit underscored the phrase “ ‘or has the right to direct or contro[l] the conduct of another person.’” 258 F. 3d, at 1130. Its opinion did not explain, however, why the Ninth Circuit did not read these words as modified by the subsequent words that limited vicarious liability to actions taken as “ ‘employee or agent of the directing or controlling person.’” Id., at 1131. Taken as a whole, the regulation, in our view, says that ordinary, not unusual, rules of vicarious liability should apply.

The Ninth Circuit also referred to several cases decided in other Circuits. The actual holdings in those cases, however, do not support the kind of nontraditional vicarious liability that the Ninth Circuit applied. See Chicago v. Matchmaker Real Estate Sales Center, Inc., 982 F. 2d 1086 (CA7 1992) (defendant corporation liable for the acts of its agents; shareholder directly, not vicariously, liable); Walker v. Crigler, 976 F. 2d 900 (CA4 1992) (owner of rental property liable for the discriminatory acts of agent, the property’s manager); Marr v. Rife, 503 F. 2d 735 (CA6 1974) (real estate agency’s owner liable for the discriminatory acts of his agency’s salespersons, but without statement of whether agency was a corporation). Nor does the language of these cases provide a convincing rationale for the Ninth Circuit’s conclusions.

The Ninth Circuit further referred to an owner’s or officer’s “non delegable duty” not to discriminate in light of the Act’s “overriding societal priority.” 258 F. 3d, at 1131, 1132 (citing Chicago v. Matchmaker Real Estate Sales Center, Inc., supra, at 1096-1097, and Walker v. Crigler, supra, at 904-905). And it added that “[w]hen one of two innocent people must suffer, the one whose acts permitted the wrong to occur is the one to bear the burden.” 258 P. 3d, at 1132.

“[A] nondelegable duty is an affirmative obligation to ensure the protection of the person to whom the duty runs.” General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U. S. 375, 396 (1982) (finding no nondelegable duty under 42 U. S. C. § 1981). Such a duty imposed upon a principal would “go further” than the vicarious liability principles we have discussed thus far to create liability “although [the principal] has himself done everything that could reasonably be required of him,” W. Prosser, Law of Torts §71, p. 470 (4th ed. 1971), and irrespective of whether the agent was acting with or without authority. The Ninth Circuit identifies nothing in the language or legislative history of the Act to support the existence of this special kind of liability — the kind of liability that, for example, the law might impose in certain special circumstances upon a principal or employer that hires an independent contractor. Restatement §214; see 5 F. Harper, F. James, & O. Gray, Law of Torts §26.11 (2d ed. 1986); Prosser, supra, § 71, at 470-471. In the absence of legal support, we cannot conclude that Congress intended, through silence, to impose this kind of special duty of protection upon individual officers or owners of corporations — who are not principals (or contracting parties) in respect to the corporation’s unlawfully acting employee.

Neither does it help to characterize the statute’s objective as an “overriding societal priority.” 258 F. 3d, at 1132. We agree with the characterization. But we do not agree that the characterization carries with it a legal rule that would hold every corporate supervisor personally liable without fault for the unlawful act of every corporate employee whom he or she has the right to supervise. Rather, which “of two innocent people must suffer,” ibid., and just when, is a complex matter. We believe that courts ordinarily should determine that matter in accordance with traditional principles of vicarious liability — unless, of course, Congress, better able than courts to weigh the relevant policy considerations, has instructed the courts differently. Cf., e. g., Sykes, The Economics of Vicarious Liability, 93 Yale L. J. 1231, 1236 (1984) (arguing that the expansion of vicarious liability or shifting of liability, due to insurance, may diminish an agent’s incentives to police behavior). We have found no different instruction here.

III

A

Respondents, conceding that traditional vicarious liability rules apply, see supra, at 289, argue that those principles themselves warrant liability here. For one thing, they say, California law itself creates what amounts, under ordinary common-law principles, to an employer/employee or principal/agent relationship between (a) a corporate officer designated as the broker under a real estate license issued to the corporation, and (b) a corporate employee/salesperson. Brief for Respondents 6-8, 13-36. Insofar as this argument rests solely upon the corporate broker/officer’s right to control the employee/salesperson, the Ninth Circuit considered and accepted it. 258 F. 3d, at 1134-1135. But we must reject it given our determination in Part II that the “right to control” is insufficient by itself, under traditional agency principles, to establish a principal/agent or employer/ employee relationship.

B

The Ninth Circuit did not decide whether other aspects of the California broker relationship, when added to the “right to control,” would, under traditional legal principles and consistent with “the general common law of agency,” Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U. S., at 754 (internal quotation marks omitted), establish the necessary relationship. But in the absence of consideration of that matter by the Court of Appeals, we shall not consider it. See Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U. S. 206, 212-213 (1998) (“‘Where issues [were not] considered by the Court of Appeals, this Court will not ordinarily consider them’” (quoting Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 147, n. 2 (1970))).

Respondents also point out that, when traditional vicarious liability principles impose liability upon a corporation, the corporation’s liability may be imputed to the corporation’s owner in an appropriate case through a “‘piercing of the corporate veil.’ ” United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U. S. 51, 63, n. 9 (1998) (quoting United States v. Cordova Chemical Co. of Michigan, 113 F. 3d 572, 580 (CA6 1997)). The Court of Appeals, however, did not decide the application of “veil piercing” in this matter either. It falls outside the scope of the question presented on certiorari. And we shall not here consider it.

The Ninth Circuit nonetheless remains free on remand to determine whether these questions were properly raised and, if so, to consider them.

* * *

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.


author: Justice Scalia Justice Stevens, Justice Breyer,

text:
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. NEXTWAVE PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC. et al.
    No. 01-653.
    Argued October 8, 2002
    Decided January 27, 2003

      Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined, and in which Stevens, J., joined as to Parts I and II. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 308. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 310.

      Acting Solicitor General Clement argued the cause for petitioner Federal Communications Commission in No. 01-653. With him on the briefs were Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Jeffrey A. Lamken, William Kanter, Jacob M. Lewis, John A. Rogovin, Daniel M. Armstrong, and Joel Marcus. Jonathan S. Franklin argued the cause for petitioners Arctic Slope Regional Corp. et al. in No. 01-657. With him on the briefs was Lorane F. Hebert.

      Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., argued the cause for respondents in both cases. With him on the briefs were Ian Heath Gershengorn, William M. Hohengarten, Thomas G. Hungar, Douglas R. Cox, Miguel A. Estrada, G. Eric Brunstad, Jr., and Deborah L. Schrier-Rape.

      Laurence H. Tribe argued the cause and filed a brief for Creditors NextWave Communications, Inc., as amici curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Charles Fried and Elizabeth Warren.

      Together with No. 01-657, Arctic Slope Regional Corp. et al. v. Next-Wave Personal Communications Inc. et al., also on certiorari to the same court.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for Airadigm Communications, Inc., by Richard P. Bress and James F. Rogers; for Urban Comm-North Carolina, Inc., et al. by Charles J. Cooper, David H. Thompson, Prehen Jensen, and Charles E. Simpson; for Professor Kathryn R. Heidt, pro se; and for Senator Patrick Leahy et al. by Walter Dellinger and Jonathan D. Hacker.

   Justice Scalia

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In these cases, we decide whether § 525 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. § 525, prohibits the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) from revoking licenses held by a debtor in bankruptcy upon the debtor’s failure to make timely payments owed to the Commission for purchase of the licenses.

I

In 1993, Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to authorize the FCC to award spectrum licenses “through a system of competitive bidding.” 48 Stat. 1085, as amended, 107 Stat. 387,47 U. S. C. §309(j)(1). It directed the Commission to “promot[e] economic opportunity and competition” and “avoi[d] excessive concentration of licenses” by “disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applications, including small businesses [and] rural telephone companies.” § 309(j)(3)(B). In order to achieve this goal, Congress directed the FCC to “consider alternative payment schedules and methods of calculation, including lump sums or guaranteed installment payments ... or other schedules or methods . . . .” § 309(j)(4)(A).

The FCC decided to award licenses for broadband personal communications services through simultaneous, multiple-round auctions. In re Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act — Competitive Bidding, 9 FCC Red. 2348, ¶¶54, 68 (1994). In accordance with §§309(j) (3)(B) and (4)(A), it restricted participation in two of the six auction blocks (Blocks “C” and “F”) to small businesses and other designated entities with total assets and revenues below certain levels, and it allowed the successful bidders in these two blocks to pay in installments over the term of the license. 47 CFR § 24.709(a)(1) (1997).

Respondents NextWave Personal Communications, Inc., and NextWave Power Partners, Inc. (both wholly owned subsidiaries of NextWave Telecom, Inc., and hereinafter jointly referred to as respondent NextWave), participated, respectively, in the FCC’s “C-Block” and “F-Block” auctions. NextWave was awarded 63 C-Block licenses on winning bids totaling approximately $4.74 billion, and 27 F-Block licenses on winning bids of approximately $123 million. In accordance with FCC regulations, NextWave made a downpayment on the purchase price, signed promissory notes for the balance, and executed security agreements that the FCC perfected by filing under the Uniform Commercial Code. The security agreements gave the Commission a first “lien on and continuing security interest in all of the Debtor’s rights and interest in [each] License.” Security Agreement between NextWave and FCC ¶ 1 (Jan. 3, 1997), 2 App. to Pet. for Cert. 402a. In addition, the licenses recited that they were “conditioned upon the full and timely payment of all monies due pursuant to . . . the terms of the Commission’s installment plan as set forth in the Note and Security Agreement executed by the licensee,” and that “[f]ailure to comply with this condition will result in the automatic cancellation of this authorization.” Radio Station Authorization for Broadband PCS (issued to NextWave Jan. 3,1997), 2 App. to Pet. for Cert. 388a.

After the C-Block and F-Block licenses were awarded, several successful bidders, including NextWave, experienced difficulty obtaining financing for their operations and petitioned the Commission to restructure their installment-payment obligations. See 12 FCC Red. 16436, ¶ 11 (1997). The Commission suspended the installment payments, 12 FCC Red. 17325 (1997); 13 FCC Red. 1286 (1997), and adopted several options that allowed C-Block licensees to surrender some or all of their licenses for full or partial forgiveness of their outstanding debt. See 12 FCC Red. 16436, ¶ 6; 13 FCC Red. 8345 (1998). It set a deadline of June 8, 1998, for licensees to elect a restructuring option, and of October 29, 1998, as the last date to resume installment payments. 13 FCC Red. 7413 (1998).

On June 8, 1998, after failing to obtain stays of the election deadline from the Commission or the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, NextWave filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in New York. See In re NextWave Personal Communications, Inc., 235 B. R. 263, 267 (Bkrtcy. Ct. SDNY 1998). It suspended payments to all creditors, including the FCC, pending confirmation of a reorganization plan. NextWave initiated an adversary proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court, alleging that its $4.74 billion indebtedness on the C-Block licenses was avoidable as a “fraudulent conveyance” under §544 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. §544, because, by the time the Commission actually conveyed the licenses, their value had declined from approximately $4.74 billion to less than $1 billion. The Bankruptcy Court agreed — ruling in effect that the company could keep its C-Block licenses for the reduced price of $1.02 billion — and the District Court affirmed. NextWave Personal Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 241 B. R. 311, 318-319 (SDNY 1999). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed, holding that, although the Bankruptcy Court might have jurisdiction over NextWave’s underlying debts to the FCC, it could not change the conditions attached to NextWave’s licenses. In re NextWave Personal Communications, Inc., 200 F. 3d 43, 55-56 (1999) (per curiam). The Second Circuit also held that since, under FCC regulations, “NextWave’s obligation attached upon the close of the auction,” there had been no fraudulent conveyance by the FCC acting in its capacity as creditor. Id., at 58.

Following the Second Circuit’s decision, NextWave prepared a plan of reorganization that envisioned payment of a single lump sum to satisfy the entire remaining $4.3 billion obligation for purchase of the C-Block licenses, including interest and late fees. The FCC objected to the plan, asserting that NextWave’s licenses had been canceled automatically when the company missed its first payment deadline in October 1998. The Commission simultaneously announced that NextWave’s licenses were “available for auction under the automatic cancellation provisions” of the FCC’s regulations. Public Notice, Auction of C and F Block Broadband PCS Licenses, 15 FCC Rcd. 693 (2000). NextWave sought emergency relief in the Bankruptcy Court, which declared the FCC’s cancellation of respondent’s licenses “null and void” as a violation of various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. In re NextWave Personal Communications, Inc., 244 B. R. 253, 257-258 (Bkrtcy. Ct. SDNY 2000). Once again, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. In re Federal Communications Commission, 217 F. 3d 125 (2000). Granting the FCC’s petition for a writ of mandamus, the Second Circuit held that “[exclusive jurisdiction to review the FCC’s regulatory action lies in the courts of appeals” under 47 U. S. C. § 402, and that since the reauction decision was regulatory, proclaiming it to be arbitrary was “outside the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court.” 217 F. 3d, at 139, 136. The Second Circuit noted, however, that “NextWave remains free to pursue its challenge to the FCC’s regulatory acts.” Id., at 140.

NextWave filed a petition with the FCC seeking reconsideration of the license cancellation, denial of which is the gravamen of the cases at bar. In the Matter of Public Notice DA 00-49 Auction of C and F Block Broadband PCS Licenses, Order on Reconsideration, 15 FCC Rcd. 17500 (2000). NextWave appealed that denial to the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit pursuant to 47 U. S. C. § 402(b), asserting that the cancellation was arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 706, and the Bankruptcy Code. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that the FCC’s cancellation of NextWave’s licenses violated 11 U. S. C. §525: “Applying the fundamental principle that federal agencies must obey all federal laws, not just those they administer, we conclude that the Commission violated the provision of the Bankruptcy Code that prohibits governmental entities from revoking debtors’ licenses solely for failure to pay debts dis-chargeable in bankruptcy.” 254 F. 3d 130, 133 (2001). We granted certiorari. 535 U. S. 904 (2002).

II

The Administrative Procedure Act requires federal courts to set aside federal agency action that is “not in accordance with law,” 5 U. S. C. § 706(2)(A) — which means, of course, any law, and not merely those laws that the agency itself is charged with administering. See, e. g., Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U. S. 402, 413-414 (1971) (“In all cases agency action must be set aside if the action was ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law’ or if the action failed to meet statutory, procedural, or constitutional requirements”). Respondent contends, and the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit held, that the FCC’s revocation of its licenses was not in accordance with § 525 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 525(a) provides, in relevant part:

“[A] governmental unit may not... revoke ... a license ... to ... a person that is ... a debtor under this title ... solely because such ... debtor... has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in the case under this title . . . .”

No one disputes that the Commission is a “governmental unit” that has “revoke[d]” a “license,” nor that NextWave is a “debtor” under the Bankruptcy Act. Petitioners argue, however, that the FCC did not revoke respondent’s licenses “solely because” of nonpayment, and that, in any event, Next Wave’s obligations are not “dischargeable” “debt[s]” within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code. They also argue that a contrary interpretation would unnecessarily bring § 525 into conflict with the Communications Act. We find none of these contentions persuasive, and discuss them in turn.

A

The FCC has not denied that the proximate cause for its cancellation of the licenses was Next Wave’s failure to make the payments that were due. It contends, however, that § 525 does not apply because the FCC had a “valid regulatory motive” for the cancellation. Brief for Petitioners Arctic Slope Regional Corp. et al. 19; see Brief for Petitioner FCC 17. In our view, that factor is irrelevant. When the statute refers to failure to pay a debt as the sole cause of cancellation (“solely because”), it cannot reasonably be understood to include, among the other causes whose presence can preclude application of the prohibition, the governmental unit’s motive in effecting the cancellation. Such a reading would deprive § 525 of all force. It is hard to imagine a situation in which a governmental unit would not have some further motive behind the cancellation — assuring the financial solvency of the licensed entity, e. g., Perez v. Campbell, 402 U. S. 637 (1971); In re The Bible Speaks, 69 B. R. 368, 374 (Bkrtcy. Ct. Mass. 1987), or punishing lawlessness, e. g., In re Adams, 106 B. R. 811, 827 (Bkrtcy. Ct. NJ 1989); In re Colon, 102 B. R. 421, 428 (Bkrtcy. Ct. ED Pa. 1989), or even (quite simply) making itself financially whole. Section 525 means nothing more or less than that the failure to pay a dischargeable debt must alone be the proximate cause of the cancellation — the act or event that triggers the agency’s decision to cancel, whatever the agency’s ultimate motive in pulling the trigger may be.

Some may think (and the opponents of § 525 undoubtedly thought) that there ought to be an exception for cancellations that have a valid regulatory purpose. Besides the fact that such an exception would consume the rule, it flies in the face of the fact that, where Congress has intended to provide regulatory exceptions to provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, it has done so clearly and expressly, rather than by a device so subtle as denominating a motive a cause. There are, for example, regulatory exemptions from the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provisions. 11 U. S. C. § 362(b)(4). And even § 525(a) itself contains explicit exemptions for certain Agriculture Department programs, see n. 2, supra. These latter exceptions would be entirely superfluous if we were to read § 525 as the Commission proposes — which means, of course, that such a reading must be rejected. See United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 35-36 (1992).

B

Petitioners contend that NextWave’s license obligations to the Commission are not “debt[s] that [are] dischargeable” in bankruptcy. 11 U. S. C. § 525(a). First, the FCC argues that “regulatory conditions like the full and timely payment condition are not properly classified as ‘debts’” under the Bankruptcy Code. Brief for Petitioner FCC 33. In its view, the “financial nature of a condition” on a license “does not convert that condition into a debt.” Ibid. This is nothing more than a retooling of petitioners’ recurrent theme that “regulatory conditions” should be exempt from §525. No matter how the Commission casts it, the argument loses. Under the Bankruptcy Code, “debt” means “liability on a claim,” 11 U. S. C. § 101(12), and “claim,” in turn, includes any “right to payment,” § 101(5)(A). We have said that “[c]laim” has “the broadest available definition,” Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U. S. 78, 83 (1991), and have held that the “plain meaning of a ‘right to payment’ is nothing more nor less than an enforceable obligation, regardless of the objectives the State seeks to serve in imposing the obligation,” Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U. S. 552, 559 (1990). See also Ohio v. Kovacs, 469 U. S. 274 (1985). In short, a debt is a debt, even when the obligation to pay it is also a regulatory condition.

Petitioners argue that respondent’s obligations are not “dischargeable” in bankruptcy because it is beyond the jurisdictional authority of bankruptcy courts to alter or modify regulatory obligations. Brief for Petitioners Arctic Slope Regional Corp. et al. 28-29; Brief for Petitioner FCC 30-31. Dischargeability, however, is not tied to the existence of such authority. A preconfirmation debt is dischargeable unless it falls within an express exception to discharge. Subsection 1141(d) of the Bankruptcy Code states that, except as otherwise provided therein, the “confirmation of a plan [of reorganization] . . . discharges the debtor from any debt that arose before the date of such confirmation,” 11 U. S. C. § 1141(d)(1)(A) (emphasis added), and the only debts it excepts from that prescription are those described in § 523, see § 1141(d)(2). Thus, “[e]xcept for the nine kinds of debts saved from discharge by 11 U. S. C. § 523(a), a discharge in bankruptcy discharges the debtor from all debts that arose before bankruptcy. § 727(b).” Kovacs, supra, at 278 (emphasis added).

Artistically symmetrical with petitioners’ contention that the Bankruptcy Court has no power to alter regulatory obligations is their contention that the D. C. Circuit has no power to modify or discharge a debt. See Brief for Petitioner FCC 31-32; Brief for Petitioner Arctic Slope Regional Corp. et al. 32, n. 9. Just as the former is irrelevant to whether the Bankruptcy Court can discharge a debt, so also the latter is irrelevant to whether the D. C. Circuit can set aside agency action that violates § 525. That court did not seek to modify or discharge the debt, but merely prevented the FCC from violating § 525 by canceling licenses because of failure to pay debts dischargeable by bankruptcy courts.

C

Finally, our interpretation of § 525 does not create any conflict with the Communications Act. It does not, as petitioners contend, obstruct the functioning of the auction provisions of 47 U. S. C. §309(j), since nothing in those provisions demands that cancellation be the sanction for failure to make agreed-upon periodic payments. Indeed, nothing in those provisions even requires the Commission to permit payment to be made over time, rather than leaving it to impecunious bidders to finance the full purchase price with private lenders. What petitioners describe as a conflict boils down to nothing more than a policy preference on the FCC’s part for (1) selling licenses on credit and (2) canceling licenses rather than asserting security interests in licenses when there is a default. Such administrative preferences cannot be the basis for denying respondent rights provided by the plain terms of a law. “‘[W]hen two statutes are capable of coexistence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.’” J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 534 U. S. 124, 143-144 (2001) (quoting Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 551 (1974)). There being no inherent conflict between § 525 and the Communications Act, “we can plainly regard each statute as effective.” J. E. M., supra, at 144. And since §525 circumscribes the Commission’s permissible action, the revocation of Next-Wave’s licenses is not in accordance with law. See 5 U.S. C. §706.

III

The dissent finds it “dangerous... to rely exclusively upon the literal meaning of a statute’s words,” post, at 311 (opinion of Breyer, J.). Instead, it determines, in splendid isolation from that language, the purpose of the statute, which it takes to be “to forbid discrimination against those who are, or were, in bankruptcy and, more generally, to prohibit governmental action that would undercut the ‘fresh start’ that is bankruptcy’s promise,” post, at 313. It deduces these language-trumping “purposes” from the most inconclusive of indications. First, the ambiguous title of § 525(a), “Protection against discriminatory treatment,” ibid. This, of course, could as well refer to discrimination against impending bankruptcy, aka insolvency. Second, its perception that the other prohibitions of § 525(a) apply only to acts “done solely for bankruptcy-related reasons.” Ibid. We do not share that perception. For example, the prohibition immediately preceding the one at issue here forbids adverse government action taken because the debtor “has been insolvent before the commencement of the case under this title, or during the case but before the debtor is granted or denied a discharge.” That seems to us clearly tied to insolvency alone (plus the mere fact of subsequent or contemporaneous bankruptcy), and does not require some additional motivation based on bankruptcy. The dissent’s third indication of “purpose” consists of the ever-available snippets of legislative history, post, at 314-315.

The dissent does eventually get to the statutory text at issue here: Step two of its analysis is to ask what interpretation of that text could possibly fulfill its posited “purposes.” “One obvious way,” the dissent concludes, “is to interpret the relevant phrase, ‘solely because’ of nonpayment of ‘a debt that is dischargeable,’ as requiring something more than a purely factual connection .... The statute’s words are open to the interpretation that they require a certain relationship between (1) the dischargeability of the debt and (2) the decision to revoke the license.” Post, at 316. To demonstrate that “openness,” the dissent gives the example of a “rule telling apartment owners that they cannot refuse to rent ‘solely because a family has children who are adopted.’” Post, at 319. Such a rule, it says quite correctly, is most reasonably read as making the adoptive nature of the children part of the prohibited motivation. But the example differs radically from the cases before us in two respects: (1) because an adopted child is the exception rather than the rule, and (2) because the class of children other than adopted children is surely not a disfavored one. In the cases before us, by contrast, the descriptive clause describes the rule rather than the exception. (As the dissent acknowledges, “virtually all debts” are dischargeable, post, at 310.) And the debts that do not fall within the rule (nondischargeable debts) are clearly disfavored by the Bankruptcy Code. To posit a text similar to the one before us, the dissent should have envisioned a rule that prohibited refusal to rent “solely because a family has children who are no more than normally destructive.” Would the “no-more-than-normal-destructiveness” of the children be a necessary part of the apartment owner’s motivation before he is in violation of the rule? That is to say, must he refuse to rent specifically because the children are no more than normally destructive? Of course not. The provision is most reasonably read as establishing an exception to the prohibition, rather than adding a motivation requirement: The owner may refuse to rent to families with destructive children. And the same is obviously true here: The government may take action that is otherwise forbidden when the debt in question is one of the disfavored class that is nondischargeable.

In addition to distorting the text of the provision, the dissent’s interpretation renders the provision superfluous. The purpose of “forbid[ding] discrimination against those who are, or were, in bankruptcy,” post, at 313, is already explicitly achieved by another portion of § 525(a), which prohibits termination of a license “solely because [the] bankrupt or debtor is or has been ... a bankrupt or debtor under the Bankruptcy Act.” 11 U. S. C. §525(a) (emphasis added). The dissent would have us believe that the language “solely because [the] bankrupt or debtor ... has not paid a debt that is dischargeable” merely achieves the very same objective through inappropriate language. We think Congress meant what it said: The government is not to revoke a bankruptcy debtor’s license solely because of a failure to pay his debts.

The dissent makes much of the “serious anomaly” that would arise from permitting “every car salesman, every residential home developer, every appliance company [to] threaten repossession of its product if a buyer does not pay,” but denying that power to the government alone, post, at 312. It is by no means clear than any anomaly exists. The ear salesman, residential home developer, etc., can obtain repossession of his product only (as the dissent acknowledges) “if [he] has taken a security interest in the product,” ibid. It is neither clear that a private party can take and enforce a security interest in an FCC license, see, e. g., In re Cheskey, 9 FCC Rcd. 986, ¶ 8 (1994), nor that the FCC cannot. (As we described in our statement of facts, the FCC purported to take such a security interest in the present cases. What is at issue, however, is not the enforcement of that interest in the bankruptcy process, but rather elimination of the licenses through the regulatory step of “revoking” them— action that the statute specifically forbids.) In any event, if there is an anomaly it is one that has been created by Congress — a state of affairs the dissent does not think intolerable, since its own disposition creates the anomaly of allowing the government to reclaim its property by means other than the enforcement of a security interest, but not permitting private individuals to do so.

* * *

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is

Affirmed.

Justice Stevens,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

Because these are such close cases, it seems appropriate to identify the considerations that have persuaded me to join the majority. When I first read 11 U. S. C. § 525(a), I thought it was not intended to apply to cases in which the licensor was also a creditor, but rather, as Justice Bkeyer persuasively argues, was merely intended to protect the debtor from discriminatory license terminations. I remain persuaded that that is the principal purpose of the provision. It is significant, however, that the first words in the section describe three exceptions for statutes, one of which contains language remarkably similar to the language in the security agreements executed by respondents in these cases. Those exceptions introduce an ambiguity.

On the one hand, they indicate that Congress did not intend § 525(a) to limit the Executive’s right to condition the retaining of a federal license on considerations similar to those on which a creditor relies. The reasons for making an exception for licenses to deal in perishable commodities would seem equally applicable to licenses to exploit the public airwaves. Indeed, there is probably a greater public interest in allowing prompt cancellation of spectrum licenses than of commodities dealers’ licenses because of the importance of facilitating development of the broadcast spectrum.

On the other hand, the exceptions demonstrate that Congress realized the breadth of the language in § 525(a). Rather than make a categorical exception that would have accommodated not only the three cases expressly covered by the text, but also cases like the ones before the Court today, the drafters retained the broad language that the Court finds decisive. That language endorses a general rule that gives priority to the debtor’s interest in preserving control of an important asset of the estate pending the completion of bankruptcy proceedings.

I do not believe that the application of that general rule to these eases will be unfair to the Federal Communications Commission either as a regulator or as a creditor. If the bankrupt licensee is unable to fulfill other conditions of its license, the regulator may cancel the licenses for reasons that are not covered by § 525(a). Moreover, given the fact that the Commission has a secured interest in the license, if the licensee can obtain the financing that will enable it to perform its obligations in full, the debt will ultimately be paid. In sum, even though I agree with Justice Breyer’s view that the literal text of a statute is not always a sufficient basis for determining the actual intent of Congress, in these cases I believe it does produce the correct answer.

Justice Breyer,

dissenting.

The statute before us says that the Government may not revoke a license it has granted to a person who has entered bankruptcy “solely because [the bankruptcy debtor] ... has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in [bankruptcy]." 11 U. S. C. § 525(a) (emphasis added). The question is whether the italicized words apply when a government creditor, having taken a security interest in a license sold on an installment plan, revokes the license not because the debtor has gone bankrupt, but simply because the debtor has failed to pay an installment as promised. The majority answers this question in the affirmative. It says that the italicized words mean

“nothing more or less than that the failure to pay a dis-chargeable debt must alone be the proximate cause of the cancellation — the act or event that triggers the agency’s decision to cancel, whatever the agency’s ultimate motive . . . may be.” Ante, at 301-302 (emphasis added).

Hence, if the debt is a dischargeable debt (as virtually all debts are), then once a debtor enters bankruptcy, the Government cannot revoke the license — irrespective of the Government’s motive. That, the majority writes, is what the statute says. Just read it. End of the matter.

It is dangerous, however, in any actual case of interpretive difficulty to rely exclusively upon the literal meaning of a statute’s words divorced from consideration of the statute’s purpose. That is so for a linguistic reason. General terms as used on particular occasions often carry with them implied restrictions as to scope. “Tell all customers that...” does not refer to every customer of every business in the world. That is also so for a legal reason. Law as expressed in statutes seeks to regulate human activities in particular ways. Law is tied to life. And a failure to understand how a statutory rule is so tied can undermine the very human activity that the law seeks to benefit. “No vehicles in the park” does not refer to baby strollers or even to tanks used as part of a war memorial. See Fuller, Positivism and Fidelity to Law—A Reply to Professor Hart, 71 Harv. L. Rev. 630, 663 (1968).

I

In my view this statute’s language is similarly restricted. A restriction implicitly limits its scope to instances in which a government’s license revocation is related to the fact that the debt was dischargeable in bankruptcy. Where the fact of bankruptcy is totally irrelevant, where the government’s action has no relation either through purpose or effect to bankruptcy or to dischargeability, where consequently the revocation cannot threaten the bankruptcy-related concerns that underlie the statute, then the revocation falls outside the statute’s scope. Congress intended this kind of exception to its general language in order to avoid consequences which, if not “absurd,” are at least at odds with the statute’s basic objectives. Cf. United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, 486 (1869) (“All laws should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence”).

The Court’s literal interpretation of the statute threatens to create a serious anomaly. It seems to say that a government cannot ever enforce a lien on property that it has sold on the installment plan as long as (1) the property is a license, (2) the buyer has gone bankrupt, and (3) the government wants the license back solely because the buyer did not pay for it. After all, in such circumstances, it is virtually always the case that the buyer will not have paid a debt that is in fact “dischargeable,” and that “event” alone will have “triggered] ” the government’s “decision” to revoke the license. See supra, at 310.

Yet every private commercial seller, every car salesman, every residential home developer, every appliance company can threaten repossession of its product if a buyer does not pay — at least if the seller has taken a security interest in the product. E. g., Farrey v. Sanderfoot, 500 U. S. 291, 297 (1991). Why should the government (state or federal), and the government alone, find it impossible to repossess a product, namely, a license, when the buyer fails to make installment payments?

The facts of these cases illustrate the problem. Next-Wave bought broadcasting licenses from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for just under $5 billion. It promised to pay the money under an installment plan. It agreed that its possession of the licenses was “conditioned upon full and timely payment,” that failure to pay would result in the licenses’ “automatic cancellation,” that the Government would maintain a “fi[r]st lien on and continuing security interest” in the licenses, and that it would “not dispute” the Government’s “rights as a secured party.” 2 App. to Pet. for Cert. 388a, 392a-393a, 402a-404a. Next-Wave never made its installment payments. It entered bankruptcy. And the FCC declared the licenses void for nonpayment. In a word, the FCC sought to repossess the licenses so that it could auction the related spectrum space to other users. As I have said, the law ordinarily permits a private creditor who has taken an appropriate security interest to repossess property for nonpayment — even after bankruptcy. See, e. g., Farrey, supra, at 297. Would Congress want to say that the Government cannot ever do the same?

II

To read the statute in light of its purpose makes clear that Congress did not want always to prohibit the Government from enforcing a sales contract through repossession. Nor did it intend an interpretation so broad that it would threaten unnecessarily to deprive the American public of the full value of public assets that it owns. Cf. 47 U. S. C. §§309(j)-(4) (authorization of spectrum auctions with restrictions “to protect the public interest”). Congress instead intended the statute’s language to implement a less far-reaching, but more understandable, objective. It sought to forbid discrimination .against those who are, or were, in bankruptcy and, more generally, to prohibit governmental action that would undercut the “fresh start” that is bankruptcy’s promise, see Grogan v. Garner, 498 U. S. 279, 286 (1991). Where that kind of government activity is at issue, the statute forbids revocation. But where that kind of activity is not at issue, there is no reason to apply the statute’s prohibition.

The statute’s title, its language, and its history all support this description of its purpose. The title says, “Protection against discriminatory treatment.” 11 U. S. C. § 525(a). The statute’s text, read as a whole, see Appendix, infra, strongly suggests that bankruptcy-related discrimination is the evil at which the statute aims. A phrase is sometimes best known by the statutory company it keeps. See, e. g., Gutierrez v. Ada, 528 U. S. 250, 255 (2000). And here the relevant phrase is immersed within language that describes a host of acts, including discharges from employment and refusals to hire, and forbids them only where done solely for bankruptcy-related reasons, i. e., a person’s being a bankruptcy debtor, having been a bankruptcy debtor, or having become insolvent before or during a bankruptcy case. See Appendix, infra.

The statute’s history demonstrates an antidiscriminatory objective. House and Senate Reports describe the relevant section, § 525(a), as “the anti-discrimination provision.” S. Rep. No. 95-989, p. 81 (1978) (hereinafter S. Rep.); H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, p. 367 (1977) (hereinafter H. R. Rep.). The House Report says that its “purpose ... is to prevent an automatic reaction against an individual for availing himself of the protection of the bankruptcy laws.” Id., at 165. In describing related provisions, the House Report refers to an intent to prevent the Government from punishing “bankruptcy per se” by denying “a license, grant, or entitlement” on the premise “that bankruptcy itself is sufficiently reprehensible behavior to warrant... a sanction.” Id., at 286. It adds that the overriding goal was “to eliminate any special treatment of bankruptcy” in laws of the United States. Id., at 285.

In addition, the House and Senate Reports describe § 525(a) as an effort to codify this Court’s holding in Perez v. Campbell, 402 U. S. 637 (1971). S. Rep., at 81; H. R. Rep., at 165, 366. The Court there held that the federal Bankruptcy Act pre-empted a state statute that suspended the driver’s license of any person who had not paid a motor accident judgment (explicitly including a judgment discharged by bankruptcy). 402 U. S., at 652. The Court rested its holding on the theory that the state statute’s failure to exempt discharged debts “frustrate^ the full effectiveness” of the Bankruptcy Act’s promise of a “fresh start.” Ibid.

Further, the House Report, along with House floor statements, assured the enacting Congress that the statute would allow “governmental units to pursue appropriate regulatory policies.” E. g., H. R. Rep., at 165. It was not meant “to interfere with legitimate regulatory objectives,” 123 Cong. Rec. 35673 (1977) (remarks of Rep. Butler); see also H. R. Rep., at 286. It might seem fair to count as one such objective the receipt by the public of payment for a partially regulated public asset that the public, through the Government, has sold. Cf. 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)(3)(C).

Finally, nothing in the statute’s history suggests any congressional effort to prevent Government repossession where bankruptcy-related concerns, such as “fresh start” concerns, have no relevance. The statute does contain exemptions, but those exemptions, for agriculture-related licenses, are not to the contrary. 11 U. S. C. § 525(a). As I read the statute, the exemptions simply excuse, say, meatpacking licensing agencies from a rule that would otherwise forbid taking negative account of, say, a prior bankruptcy (say, by providing that a license “shall terminate upon [the] licensee . . . being discharged as a bankrupt,” 7 U. S. C. §499d(a); see ante, at 308-309, and n. 1 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment)). To read them as permitting consideration of former bankruptcies where the food supply is at issue makes them understandable. To read them as support for the majority’s view — as authorizing the Government to revoke meatpacking, but only meatpacking, licenses upon nonpayment — makes little sense to me.

The statute’s purposes, then, are to stop bankruptcy-related discrimination and to prevent government licensors from interfering with the “fresh start” that bankruptcy promises, but not to prevent government debt-collection efforts where these concerns are not present. Unlike the majority, I believe it possible to interpret the statute’s language in a manner consistent with these purposes.

III

The provision’s congressional authors expected courts to look for interpretations that would conform the statute’s language to its purposes. They conceded that the provision’s “ultimate contours” were “not yet clear.” H. R. Rep., at 165. But they said that the courts would determine “the extent of the discrimination that is contrary to bankruptcy policy.” Ibid. And they thought the courts would do so “in pursuit of sound bankruptcy policy.” S. Rep., at 81; H. R. Rep., at 367.

One obvious way to carry out this interpretive mandate is to interpret the relevant phrase, “solely because” of nonpayment of “a debt that is dischargeable,” as requiring something more than a purely factual connection, i. e., something more than a causal connection between a government’s revocation of a license and nonpayment of a debt that is, merely in fact, dischargeable. The statute’s words are open to the interpretation that they require a certain relationship between (1) the dischargeability of the debt and (2) the decision to revoke the license. That necessary relationship would exist if the debt’s dischargeability played a role in the government’s decisionmaking through motivation — if, for example, the fact that the debt was dischargeable (or the fact of bankruptcy, etc.) mattered to the FCC. The necessary relationship would also exist if the government’s revocation interfered in some significant way with bankruptcy’s effort to provide a “fresh start.” But otherwise, where the fact of dischargeability is irrelevant, where it has nothing to do with the government’s decision either by way of purpose or effect, the government’s license revocation would fall outside the scope of the provision.

This interpretation is consistent with the statute’s language. It simply takes account not only of the statutory language’s factual content — i. e., its reference to a debt that is in fact dischargeable — but also its intended significance. A debt’s dischargeability cannot simply be a coincidence but must bear a meaningful relation to the prohibited government action. Cf. Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600, 619-620 (1994) (statute forbidding possession of a machine-gun requires not simply that the gun, in fact, discharge automatically, but also that the defendant know that the gun meets the statute’s description).

This interpretation is consistent with several lower court efforts to interpret the statute. See, e. g., Toth v. Michigan State Housing Development Authority, 136 F. 3d 477, 480 (CA6), cert. denied, 524 U. S. 954 (1998); In re Exquisito Services, Inc., 823 F. 2d 151, 153 (CA5 1987); In re Smith, 259 B. R. 901, 906 (Bkrtcy. App. Panel CA8 2001). But see In re Stoltz, 315 F. 3d 80 (CA2 2002). It would avoid handicapping government debt collection efforts in ways that Congress did not intend. It would further the statute’s basic purpose — preventing discrimination and preserving bankruptcy’s “fresh start.” And it would avoid interfering with legitimate public debt collection efforts. An individual could not generally promise to pay for a public asset, go into bankruptcy, avoid the payment obligation, and keep the asset — even in the absence of the evils at which this statute is aimed.

This statutory approach is far from novel. Well over a century ago, the Court interpreted a statute that forbade knowing and willful obstruction of the mail as containing an implicit exception permitting a local sheriff to arrest a mail carrier. United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall., at 485-487. Justice Field, writing for the Court, pointed out that centuries earlier the British courts had interpreted a statute making it a felony to break out of prison not to extend to a breakout when the prison is on fire. Id., at 487. And, similarly, the courts of Bologna had interpreted a statute punishing severely “ ‘whoever drew blood in the streets’ ” not to extend to a surgeon faced with an emergency. Ibid. “[C]ommon sense,” wrote Justice Field, “accepts” these rulings. Ibid. So too does common sense suggest that we should interpret the present statute not to extend to revocation efforts that are no more closely related to the statute’s objectives than are baby strollers to the “vehicles” forbidden entry into the park. See supra, at 311.

IV

The majority responds to my concerns in several ways. First, it characterizes the dissent in a slightly exaggerated manner, stating, for example, that I have “determine^]” the statute’s “purpose” in “splendid isolation from [its] language,” that bankruptcy’s “fresh start” objective “plays no real role in [my] analysis,” and that that “criterion” is, in any event, “circular.” Ante, at 305, and n. 4. I would refer the reader to Parts II and III above (which contain considerable discussion of statutory language and statutory history) and, in particular, to the discussion of Perez, a decision that relied upon the “fresh start” objective in a way that the statute seeks to codify and that my own suggested interpretation of the statute incorporates. In my view, the language of the statute taken as a whole — including its “insolvency” language, ante, at 305 — strongly suggests that Congress intended bankruptcy to have something to do with the forbidden government action. See Appendix, infra.

Second, the majority argues that my interpretation makes the statute’s “dischargeable debt” provision “superfluous,” given language forbidding revocation because a person “ ‘is . . . a [bankruptcy] debtor.’” Ante, at 307 (emphasis deleted). I do not see how that is so. A refusal to issue, say, a new dry cleaner’s license “solely because” a bankruptcy debtor once failed to pay for other dry cleaner’s licenses (now discharged debts) is not necessarily the same as a refusal to issue a new license “solely because” the debtor “has been ... a bankrupt,” 11 U. S. C. § 525(a). And the statute’s separate provisions simply cover this differentiated bankruptcy-related waterfront.

Third, the majority returns to the statutory language prohibiting a government from revoking a license “solely because [the bankrupt debtor] . . . has not paid a debt that is dischargeable,” ibid. Ante, at 306-307. To my ear, this language suggests a possible connection between discharge-ability and revocation. I have tried to test my linguistic sense through analogy, imagining, for example, a regulatory rule telling apartment owners that they cannot refuse to rent “solely because a family has children who are adopted” (which, notwithstanding the majority’s complex discussion of “destructive children,” ante, at 306, seems linguistically comparable). This language suggests the need for a connection between (1) the fact of adoption and (2) the refusal (thereby exempting an owner who accepts no children at all). Is it not, like the statute’s language, at least open to such an interpretation? That is the linguistic point. It opens the door to a consideration of context and purpose — which, in any 'event, are relevant to determine whether the statute contains an implicit exemption, see supra, at 317.

Finally, the majority points out that, in the wake of a complicated procedural history, these cases are now not about “enforcement of [a security] interest in” the Bankruptcy Court. Ante, at 307, and n. 5. But the majority’s interpretation certainly seems to cover that circumstance, and more. Under the majority’s understanding, a government creditor who seeks to enforce a security interest in a broadcasting license (after the bankruptcy stay has been lifted or after bankruptcy proceedings terminate) would be seeking to repossess, and thereby to revoke, that license “solely because” of the debtor’s failure to pay a “dischargeable” debt. After all, under such circumstances, “failure to pay” the debt that is in fact dischargeable would “alone be the proximate cause” of the government’s action. Ante, at 301. It is “the act or event that triggers the agency’s decision to cancel, whatever the agency’s ultimate motive.” Ante, at 301-302.

If I am right about this, the majority’s interpretation means that private creditors, say, car dealers, can enforce security interests in the goods that they sell, namely, cars, but governments cannot enforce security interests in items that they sell, namely, licenses. (Whether a private party can “take and enforce a security interest in an FCC license,” ante, at 307, is beside this particular point.)

The matter is important. In these very cases, the Government sought to retake its licenses through enforcement of its security interest. See, e. g., In re NextWave Personal Communications, Inc., 241 B. R. 311, 321 (SDNY) (affirming denial of the Government’s motion for relief from the automatic stay under 11 U. S. C. § 362(d)(1)), rev’d, 200 F. 3d 43, 45-46, 62, and n. 1 (CA2 1999) (reversing that affirmance). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit indicated that the FCC’s revocation of the licenses, see ante, at 307-308, is properly characterized as foreclosure on collateral — i. e., as an attempt to enforce liens. See 254 F. 3d 130, 151 (CADC 2001); cf. In re Kingsport Ventures, L. P, 251 B. R. 841, 844 (ED Tenn. 2000) (private party’s power to use “revocation” to enforce interest in a license). But because the Court of Appeals rested its decision on § 525(a) grounds, it did not determine whether bankruptcy’s automatic stay blocked such foreclosure. 254 F. 3d, at 148-149, 156. See generally 11 U. S. C. §§ 362(a)(4)-(5) (staying enforcement of liens). Consequently, if the majority believes that § 525(a) permits the Government to enforce security interests in its license collateral, it should remand these cases, permitting the Court of Appeals to decide whether other bankruptcy provisions (such as §362) block the Government’s efforts to do so.

I emphasize the point because the majority is right in thinking that lien-enforcement difficulties create much of the anomaly I fear — in effect divorcing the majority’s reading from the statute’s basic purpose. Is it not reasonable to ask for reassurance on this point, to ask what future interpretive corollary might rescue government lien-enforcement efforts from the difficulties the majority’s statutory interpretation seems to create? Unless there is an answer to this question, the majority’s opinion holds out no more than a slim possibility of ad hoc adjustment based upon future need. And such an adjustment, if it comes at all, may amount to mere judicial fiat — used to rescue an interpretation that rests too heavily upon linguistic deduction and too little upon human purpose.

V

Because the Government, asserting its security interest, may be able to show that revocation here bears no relationship to the debt’s “dischargeability” and would not otherwise improperly interfere with the Code’s “fresh start” objective, I would vacate the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remand for further proceedings. I respectfully dissent.

APPENDIX TO OPINION OF BREYER, J.

The full text of 11 U. S. C. § 525(a) states:

“Protection against discriminatory treatment
“(a) Except as provided in the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, and section 1 of the Act entitled ‘An Act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1944, and for other purposes,’ approved July 12,1943, a governmental unit may not deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a license, permit, charter, franchise, or other similar grant to, condition such a grant to, discriminate with respect to such a grant against, deny employment to, terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, a person that is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or a debtor under the Bankruptcy Act, or another person with whom such bankrupt or debtor has been associated, solely because such bankrupt or debtor is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or debtor under the Bankruptcy Act, has been insolvent before the commencement of the case under this title, or during the case but before the debtor is granted or denied a discharge, or has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in the case under this title or that was discharged under the Bankruptcy Act.”

       We do not reach the merits of the determination that the licenses should be valued as of the time they were conveyed, rather than as of the time NextWave won the auction entitling it to conveyance.

       The full text of 11 U. S. C. § 525(a) reads as follows:
      “Except as provided in the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, and section 1 of the Act entitled ‘An Act making appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1944, and for other purposes,’ approved July 12, 1943, a governmental unit may not deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a license, permit, charter, franchise, or other similar grant to, condition such a grant to, discriminate with respect to such a grant against, deny employment to, terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, a person that is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or a debtor under the Bankruptcy Act, or another person with whom such bankrupt or debtor has been associated, solely because such bankrupt or debtor is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or debtor under the Bankruptcy Act, has been insolvent before the commencement of the case under this title, or during the case but before the debtor is granted or denied a discharge, or has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in the case under this title or that was discharged under the Bankruptcy Act.”

      Justice Stevens does not join this Part.

       The portion of the dissenting opinion that deduces the statute’s purposes, Part II, post, at 313-315, contains no discussion of the portion of § 525(a) at issue here.

       The second of the purposes, by the way — prohibiting government action that “would undercut the ‘fresh start’ that is bankruptcy’s promise,” post, at 313 — plays no real role in the dissent’s analysis, if indeed such a circular criterion could ever play a role in any analysis. The whole issue before us can be described as asking what the Bankruptcy Code’s promise of a “fresh start” consists of. Rather than reframing the question, our interpretation concretely accords a “fresh start” where the dissent would not — where there is revocation of a license solely because of a bankrupt’s failure to pay dischargeable debts.

       The FCC initially participated in the bankruptcy proceedings as a creditor. See, e. g., In re NextWave Personal Communications, Inc., 235 B. R. 314 (Bkrtcy. Ct. SDNY 1999). However, after NextWave prepared a plan of reorganization the FCC asserted that the licenses had been automatically canceled and gave notice of its intent to reauction them. The Second Circuit treated this decision as “regulatory,” and thus outside the scope of the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction. See In re Federal Communications Commission, 217 F. 3d 125, 139, 136 (2000). The decision by the D. C. Circuit recognized and seemingly approved that distinction. See 254 F. 3d 130, 143 (2001).

       The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, provides, in part:
      “Whenever an applicant has paid the prescribed fee the Secretary . . . shall issue to such applicant a license, which shall entitle the licensee to do business as a commission merchant..., but said license shall automatically terminate .. . unless the licensee . . . pays the applicable renewal fee[:] [T]he license of any licensee shall terminate upon said licensee .. . being discharged as a bankrupt, unless the Secretary finds upon examination of the circumstances of such bankruptcy ... that such circumstances do not warrant termination.” 7 U. S. C. §499d(a) (emphases added).
      The security agreements between NextWave and the Government provided that “the License shall be automatically canceled” upon NextWave’s defaulting on an installment payment. 2 App. to Pet. for Cert. 409a.

       The Senate Report explained that § 525(a) “does not prohibit consideration of other factors, such as future financial responsibility or ability, and does not prohibit imposition of requirements such as net capital rules, if applied nondiscriminatorily.” S. Rep. No. 95-989, p. 81 (1978).