source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Rehnquist

license: Public Domain

text:
    UNITED STATES v. MENDOZA
    No. 82-849.
    Argued November 2, 1983
    Decided January 10, 1984

      Deputy Solicitor General Getter argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Lee and Joshua I. Schwartz.

      Donald L. Ungar argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Lawrence N. DiCostanzo.

   Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1978 respondent Sergio Mendoza, a Filipino national, filed a petition for naturalization under a statute which by its terms had expired 32 years earlier. Respondent’s claim for naturalization was based on the assertion that the Government’s administration of the Nationality Act denied him due process of law. Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ever reached the merits of his claim, because they held that the Government was collaterally estopped from litigating that constitutional issue in view of an earlier decision against the Government in a case brought by other Filipino nationals in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. We hold that the United States may not be collaterally estopped on an issue such as this, adjudicated against it in an earlier lawsuit brought by a different party. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The facts bearing on respondent’s claim to naturalization are not in dispute. In 1942 Congress amended the Nationality Act, § 701 of which provided that noncitizens who served honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States during World War II were exempt from some of the usual requirements for nationality. In particular, such veterans were exempt from the requirement of residency within the United States and literacy in the English language. Congress later provided by amendment that all naturalization petitions seeking to come under § 701 must be filed by December 31, 1946. Act of Dec. 28, 1945, § 202(c), 59 Stat. 658. Section 702 of the Act provided for the overseas naturalization of aliens in active service who were eligible for naturalization under § 701 but who were not within the jurisdiction of any court authorized to naturalize aliens. In order to implement that provision, the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1943 to 1946 sent representatives abroad to naturalize eligible alien servicemen.

Respondent Mendoza served as a doctor in the Philippine Commonwealth Army from 1941 until his discharge in 1946. Because Japanese occupation of the Philippines had made naturalization of alien servicemen there impossible before the liberation of the Islands, the INS did not designate a representative to naturalize eligible servicemen there until 1945. Because of concerns expressed by the Philippine Government to the United States, however, to the effect that large numbers of Filipinos would be naturalized and would immigrate to the United States just as the Philippines gained their independence, the Attorney General subsequently revoked the naturalization authority of the INS representative. Thus all naturalizations in the Philippines were halted for a 9-month period from late October 1945 until a new INS representative was appointed in August 1946.

Respondent’s claim for naturalization is based on the contention that that conduct of the Government deprived him of due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because he was present in the Philippines during part, but not all, of the 9-month period during which there was no authorized INS representative there. The naturalization examiner recommended denial of Mendoza’s petition, but the District Court granted the petition without reaching the merits of Mendoza’s constitutional claim. The District Court concluded that the Government could not relitigate the due process issue because that issue had already been decided against the Government in In re Naturalization of 68 Filipino War Veterans, 406 F. Supp. 931 (ND Cal. 1975) (hereinafter 68 Filipinos), a decision which the Government had not appealed.

Noting that the doctrine of nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel has been conditionally approved by this Court in Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U. S. 322 (1979), the Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court had not abused its discretion in applying that doctrine against the United States in this case. 672 F. 2d 1320, 1322 (1982). The Court of Appeals rejected the Government’s argument that Parklane Hosiery should be limited to private litigants. Although it acknowledged that the Government is often involved in litigating issues of national significance where conservation of judicial resources is less important than “getting a second opinion,” it concluded that litigation concerning the rights of Filipino war veterans was not such a case. 672 F. 2d, at 1329-1330. For the reasons which follow, we agree with the Government that Parklane Hosiery's approval of nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel is not to be extended to the United States.

Under the judicially developed doctrine of collateral estop-pel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision is conclusive in a subsequent suit based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation. Montana v. United States, 440 U. S. 147, 153 (1979). Collateral estoppel, like the related doctrine of res judicata, serves to “relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.” Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S. 90, 94 (1980). In furtherance of those policies, this Court in recent years has broadened the scope of the doctrine of collateral estoppel beyond its common-law limits. Ibid. It has done so by abandoning the requirement of mutuality of parties, Blonder - Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U. S. 313 (1971), and by conditionally approving the “offensive” use of collateral estoppel by a nonparty to a prior lawsuit. Parklane Hosiery, supra.

In Standefer v. United States, 447 U. S. 10, 24 (1980), however, we emphasized the fact that Blonder-Tongue and Parklane Hosiery involved disputes over private rights between private litigants. We noted that “[i]n such cases, no significant harm flows from enforcing a rule that affords a litigant only one full and fair opportunity to litigate an issue, and [that] there is no sound reason for burdening the courts with repetitive litigation.” 447 U. S., at 24. Here, as in Montana v. United States, supra, the party against whom the estoppel is sought is the United States; but here, unlike in Montana, the party who seeks to preclude the Government from relitigating the issue was not a party to the earlier litigation.

We have long recognized that “the Government is not in a position identical to that of a private litigant,” INS v. Hibi, 414 U. S. 5, 8 (1973) (per curiam), both because of the geographic breadth of Government litigation and also, most importantly, because of the nature of the issues the Government litigates. It is not open to serious dispute that the Government is a party to a far greater number of cases on a nationwide basis than even the most litigious private entity; in 1982, the United States was a party to more than 75,000 of the 206, 193 filings in the United States District Courts. Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Annual Report of the Director 98 (1982). In the same year the United States was a party to just under 30% of the civil cases appealed from the District Courts to the Court of Appeals. Id., at 79, 82. Government litigation frequently involves legal questions of substantial public importance; indeed, because the proscriptions of the United States Constitution are so generally directed at governmental action, many constitutional questions can arise only in the context of litigation to which the Government is a party. Because of those facts the Government is more likely than any private party to be involved in lawsuits against different parties which nonetheless involve the same legal issues.

A rule allowing nonmutual collateral estoppel against the Government in such cases would substantially thwart the development of important questions of law by freezing the first final decision rendered on a particular legal issue. Allowing only one final adjudication would deprive this Court of the benefit it receives from permitting several courts of appeals to explore a difficult question before this Court grants certiorari. See E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U. S. 112, 135, n. 26 (1977); see also Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S. 682, 702 (1979). Indeed, if nonmutual estoppel were routinely applied against the Government, this Court would have to revise its practice of waiting for a conflict to develop before granting the Government’s petitions for certiorari. See this Court’s Rule 17.1.

The Solicitor General’s policy for determining when to appeal an adverse decision would also require substantial revision. The Court of Appeals faulted the Government in this caseN for failing to appeal a decision that it now contends is erroneous. 672 F. 2d, at 1326-1327. But the Government’s litigation conduct in a case is apt to differ from that of a private litigant. Unlike a private litigant who generally does not forgo an appeal if he believes that he can prevail, the Solicitor General considers a variety of factors, such as the limited resources of the Government and the crowded dockets of the courts, before authorizing an appeal. Brief for United States 30-31. The application of nonmutual estoppel against the Government would force the Solicitor General to abandon those prudential concerns and to appeal every adverse decision in order to avoid foreclosing further review.

In addition to those institutional concerns traditionally considered by the Solicitor General, the panoply of important public issues raised in governmental litigation may quite properly lead successive administrations of the Executive Branch to take differing positions with respect to the resolution of-a particular issue. While the Executive Branch must of course defer to the Judicial Branch for final resolution of questions of constitutional law, the former nonetheless controls the progress of Government litigation through the federal courts. It would be idle to pretend that the conduct of Government litigation in all its myriad features, from the decision to file a complaint in the United States district court to the decision to petition for certiorari to review a judgment of the court of appeals, is a wholly mechanical procedure which involves no policy choices whatever.

For example, in recommending to the Solicitor General in 1977 that the Government’s appeal in 68 Filipinos be withdrawn, newly appointed INS Commissioner''Castillo commented that such a course “would be in keeping with the policy of the [new] Administration,” described as “a course of compassion and amnesty.” Brief for United States 11. But for the very reason that such policy choices are made by one administration, and often reevaluated by another administration, courts should be careful when they seek to apply expanding rules of collateral estoppel to Government litigation. The Government of course may not now undo the consequences of its decision not to appeal the District Court judgment in the 68 Filipinos case; it is bound by that judgment under the principles of res judicata. But we now hold that it is not further bound in a case involving a litigant who was not a party to the earlier litigation.

The Court of Appeals did not endorse a routine application of nonmutual collateral estoppel against the Government, because it recognized that the Government does litigate issues of far-reaching national significance which in some cases, it concluded, might warrant relitigation. But in this case it found no “record evidence” indicating that there was a “crucial need” in the administration of the immigration laws for a redetermination of the due process question decided in 68 Filipinos and presented again in this case. 672 F. 2d, at 1329-1330. The Court of Appeals did not make clear what sort of “record evidence” would have satisfied it that there was a “crucial need” for redetermination of the question in this case, but we pretermit further discussion of that approach; we believe that the standard announced by the Court of Appeals for determining when relitigation of a legal issue is to be permitted is so wholly subjective that it affords no guidance to the courts or to the Government. Such a standard leaves the Government at sea because it cannot possibly anticipate, in determining whether or not to appeal an adverse decision, whether a court will bar relitigation of the issue in a later case. By the time a court makes its subjective determination that an issue cannot be relitigated, the Government’s appeal of the prior ruling of course would be untimely.

We hold, therefore, that nonmutual offensive collateral es-toppel simply does not apply against the Government in such a way as to preclude relitigation of issues such as those involved in this case. The conduct of Government litigation in the courts of the United States is sufficiently different from the conduct of private civil litigation in those courts so that what might otherwise be economy interests underlying a broad application of collateral estoppel are outweighed by the constraints which peculiarly affect the Government. We think that our conclusion will better allow thorough development of legal doctrine by allowing litigation in multiple forums. Indeed, a contrary result might disserve the economy interests in whose name estoppel is advanced by requiring the Government to abandon virtually any exercise of discretion in seeking to review judgments unfavorable to it. The doctrine of res judicata, of course, prevents the Government from relitigating the same cause of action against the parties to a prior decision, but beyond that point principles of nonmutual collateral estoppel give way to the policies just stated.

Our holding in this case is consistent with each of our prior holdings to which the parties have called our attention, and which we reaffirm. Today in a companion case we hold that the Government may be estopped under certain circumstances from relitigating a question when the parties to the two lawsuits are the same. United States v. Stauffer Chemical Co., post, p. 165; see also Montana v. United States, 440 U. S. 147 (1979); United States v. Moser, 266 U. S. 236 (1924). None of those cases, however, involve the effort of a party to estop the Government in the absence of mutuality.

The concerns underlying our disapproval of collateral es-toppel against the Government are for the most part inapplicable where mutuality is present, as in Stauffer Chemical, Montana, and Moser. The application of an estoppel when the Government is litigating the same issue with the same party avoids the problem of freezing the development of the law because the Government is still free to litigate that issue in the future with some other party. And, where the parties are the same, estopping the Government spares a party that has already prevailed once from having to relitigate — a function it would not serve in the present circumstances. We accordingly hold that the Court of Appeals was wrong in applying nonmutual collateral estoppel against the Government in this case. Its judgment is therefore

Reversed.

       Mendoza sought naturalization pursuant to §§ 701-705 of the Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1137, added by the Second War Powers Act, 1942, 56 Stat. 182, as amended, 8 U. S. C. §§1001-1005 (1940 ed., Supp. V).

       In 68 Filipinos, the District Court considered the naturalization petitions of 68 Filipino World War II veterans filed pursuant to §§ 701-702 of the Nationality Act. Fifty-three of those veterans, whom the District Court designated as Category II veterans, like Mendoza, had made no effort to become naturalized before the expiration of the statutory provisions. Like Mendoza, they claimed that the failure of the United States to station an INS representative in the Philippines for the entire period of time in which rights under § 702 were available to them discriminated against Filipinos as a class. Rejecting the Government’s arguments that INS v. Hibi, 414 U. S. 5 (1973) (per curiam), was controlling, that the issue was nonjusticiable, and that petitioners were not protected by the Federal Constitution during the period at issue, the court applied strict scrutiny to petitioners’ claim and held that the Government had not offered sufficient justification for its conduct. 406 F. Supp., at 940-951.
      Although the Government initially docketed an appeal from that decision, the Court of Appeals granted the Government’s motion to withdraw the appeal on November 30, 1977. The Government made that motion after a new administration and a new INS Commissioner had taken office. Eventually the Government reevaluated its position and decided to take appeals from all orders granting naturalization to so-called Category II petitioners, with the exception of orders granting naturalization to petitioners who filed petitions prior to the withdrawal of the appeal in 68 Filipinos. Brief for United States 11-12, and n. 13; Olegario v. United States, 629 F. 2d 204, 214 (CA2 1980), cert. denied, 450 U. S. 980 (1981). Mendoza’s petition for naturalization was filed after the Government withdrew its appeal in 68 Filipinos.

       Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits bars further claims by parties or their privies on the same cause of action. Montana v. United States, 440 U. S., at 153; Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U. S. 322, 326, n. 5 (1979). The Restatement of Judgments speaks of res judi-cata as “claim preclusion” and of collateral estoppel as “issue preclusion.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982).

       Offensive use of collateral estoppel occurs when a plaintiff seeks to foreclose a defendant from relitigating an issue the defendant has previously litigated unsuccessfully in another action against the same or a different party. Defensive use of collateral estoppel occurs when a defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from relitigating an issue the plaintiff has previously litigated unsuccessfully in another action against the same or a different party. Parklane Hosiery, supra, at 326, n. 4.

       In Montana we held that the Government was estopped from relitigat-ing in federal court the constitutionality of Montana’s gross receipts tax on contractors of public construction firms. That issue had previously been litigated in state court by an individual contractor whose litigation had been totally financed and controlled by the Federal Government. Montana v. United States, supra, at 151, 155; see n. 9, infra.

       The Attorney General has delegated discretionary authority to the Solicitor General to determine when to appeal from a judgment adverse to the interests of the United States. 28 CFR § 0.20(b) (1983).

         The Government does not base its argument on the exception to the doctrine of collateral estoppel for “unmixed questions of law” arising in “successive actions involving unrelated subject matter.” Montana v.
        United States, 440 U. S., at 162; see United States v. Stauffer Chemical Co., post, p. 165; United States v. Moser, 266 U. S. 236, 242 (1924). Our holding in no way depends on that exception.

       In Nevada v. United States, 463 U. S. 110 (1983), we applied principles of res judicata against the United States as to one class of claimants who had not been parties to an earlier adjudication, id., at 143-144, but we recognized that this result obtained in the unique context of “a comprehensive adjudication of water rights intended to settle once and for all the question of how much of the Truckee River each of the litigants was entitled to.” Id., at 143.

       In Montana an individual contractor brought an initial action to challenge Montana’s gross receipts tax in state court, and the Federal Government brought a second action in federal court raising the same challenge. The Government totally controlled and financed the state-court action; thus for all practical purposes, there was mutuality of parties in the two cases. “[T]he United States plainly had a sufficient ‘laboring oar’ in the conduct of the state-court litigation,” 440 U. S., at 155, to be constituted a “party” in all but a technical sense.


author: Justice Rehnquist Justice White,

text:
    UNITED STATES v. STAUFFER CHEMICAL CO.
    No. 82-1448.
    Argued November 2, 1983
    Decided January 10, 1984

      Deputy Solicitor General Claiborne argued the cause for the United States. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Lee, Acting Assistant Attorney General Walker, Joshua I. Schwartz, and Dirk D. Snel.

      Charles F. Lettow argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
   Justice Rehnquist

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In March 1980, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tried to inspect one of respondent Stauffer Chemical Co.’s Tennessee plants using private contractors in addition to full-time EPA employees, Stauffer refused to allow the private contractors to enter the plant. Stauffer argues that private contractors are not “authorized representatives” as that term is used in § 114(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act, 84 Stat. 1687, 42 U. S. C. § 7414(a)(2) (1976 ed., Supp. V). Stauffer also argues that the Government should be estopped from relitigating the question of whether private contractors are “authorized representatives” under the statute because it has already litigated that question against Stauffer and lost in connection with an attempted inspection of one of Stauffer’s plants in Wyoming. The Court of Appeals agreed with Stauffer on the merits and also on the collateral-estoppel issue. Without reaching the merits, we affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding that the Government is estopped from relitigating the statutory issue against Stauffer.

On March 27, 1980, officials from EPA and the State of Tennessee, accompanied by employees of a private firm under contract to EPA, attempted to inspect Stauffer’s elemental phosphorus production plant in Mt. Pleasant, Tenn. Stauffer refused entry to the private contractors unless they would sign an agreement not to disclose trade secrets. When the private contractors refused to do so, the entire group left without making the inspection. EPA later obtained an administrative warrant authorizing the private employees to conduct the inspection, and Stauffer refused to honor the warrant.

On the following day, EPA began a civil contempt proceeding against Stauffer in Federal District Court in Tennessee, and Stauffer simultaneously moved to quash the warrant. It argued that private contractors are not “authorized representatives” under § 114(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act for the purposes of conducting inspections of premises subject to regulation under that Act. The District Court denied Stauffer’s motion to quash, accepting EPA’s argument that the inspection authority conferred upon “authorized representatives” by the statute extends to private contractors retained by EPA. 511 F. Supp. 744 (MD Tenn. 1981).

On appeal, Stauffer reiterated its statutory argument and also asserted that the Government should be collaterally estopped on the basis of the decision in Stauffer Chemical Co. v. EPA, 647 F. 2d 1075 (CA10 1981) (hereinafter Stauffer I), from contending that § 114(a)(2) authorizes private contractors to conduct inspections of Stauffer’s plants. In Stauffer I officials of EPA and the State of Wyoming, accompanied by employees of a different private firm under contract to EPA, attempted to conduct an inspection of Stauffer’s phosphate ore processing plant near Sage, Wyo. As in the present case, Stauffer insisted that the private contractors sign a nondisclosure agreement, and when they declined to do so, Stauffer refused to allow them to enter the plant. EPA obtained an administrative warrant authorizing the private contractors to conduct the inspection, and Stauffer refused to honor the warrant. Stauffer then instituted an action in United States District Court in Wyoming seeking to quash the warrant and to enjoin EPA from using private contractors in inspecting Stauffer’s Wyoming plants. The District Court issued the injunction, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding that private contractors are not “authorized representatives” pursuant to § 114(a)(2). Id., at 1079.

The Sixth Circuit in the present case (hereinafter Stauffer II) reversed the District Court, adopting alternative grounds for its decision. Judge Weick, who delivered the opinion of the court, agreed with the Tenth Circuit that private contractors are not authorized to conduct inspections under the Clean Air Act. 684 F. 2d 1174, 1181-1190 (1982). Relying on Montana v. United States, 440 U. S. 147 (1979), he also held that the Government was collaterally estopped by Stauffer I from litigating the statutory question again against Stauffer. 684 F. 2d, at 1179-1181. Judge Jones wrote a separate opinion concurring on the collateral-estoppel issue and concluding that it was inappropriate for the court to reach the merits. Id., at 1190-1192. Judge Siler also wrote separately, dissenting from Judge Weick’s opinion on the collateral-estoppel issue but concurring in his opinion on the merits. Id., at 1192-1193. For the reasons which follow, we agree that the doctrine of mutual defensive collateral estoppel is applicable against the Government to preclude relitigation of the same issue already litigated against the same party in another case involving virtually identical facts. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals without reaching the merits.

In Montana v. United States, supra, we held that the United States was estopped from relitigating in federal court the question of whether the Montana gross receipts tax on contractors of public, but not private, construction firms violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. A public contractor, financed and directed by the Federal Government, had already litigated that question in state court, and the Montana Supreme Court unanimously had upheld the tax. In approving the defensive use of collateral estoppel against the Government in Montana, we first determined that there was mutuality of parties, see United States v. Mendoza, ante, at 164, n. 9, that the issue sought to be relitigated was identical to the issue already unsuccessfully litigated in state court, and that there had been no change in controlling facts or legal principles since the state-court action. 440 U. S., at 155-162.

We next looked to see whether there were any special circumstances warranting an exception to the otherwise applicable rules of preclusion. One exception which we mentioned as possibly relevant is the exception for “unmixed questions of law” arising in “successive actions involving unrelated subject matter.” Id., at 162; see United States v. Moser, 266 U. S. 236, 242 (1924). Noting that the exception first articulated in Moser is “difficult to delineate,” 440 U. S., at 163, we nonetheless had no trouble finding it inapplicable in Montana because of the close alignment in both time and subject matter between the federal-court and the state-court actions. Ibid. ,

Like Montana the case at bar involves the defensive use of collateral estoppel against the Government by a party to a prior action. The Government does not argue that the § 114(a)(2) issues in Stauffer I and Stauffer II are dissimilar nor that controlling law or facts have changed since Stauffer I. The Government instead argues that an exception to the normal rules of estoppel should apply because the statutory question here is an “unmixed question of law” arising in substantially unrelated actions. It also argues that the special role of the Government in litigating recurring issues of public importance warrants an exception in cases such as this one. We disagree with both of the Government’s arguments.

As commonly explained, the doctrine of collateral estoppel can apply to preclude relitigation of both issues of law and issues of fact if those issues were conclusively determined in a prior action. United States v. Mendoza, ante, p. 154; Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S. 90, 94 (1980). Our cases, however, recognize an exception to the applicability of the principles of collateral estoppel for “unmixed questions of law” arising in “successive actions involving unrelated subject matter.” Montana v. United States, supra, at 162; see also Allen v. McCurry, supra, at 95, n. 7; United States v. Moser, supra, at 242. While our discussion in Montana indicates that the exception is generally recognized, we are frank to admit uncertainty as to its application. The exception seems to require a determination as to whether an “issue of fact” or an “issue of law” is sought to be relitigated and then a determination as to whether the “issue of law” arises in a successive case that is so unrelated to the prior case that relitigation of the issue is warranted. Yet we agree that, for the purpose of determining when to apply an estoppel,

“[w]hen the claims in two separate actions between the same parties are the same or are closely related ... it is not ordinarily necessary to characterize an issue as one of fact or of law for purposes of issue preclusion. ... In such a case, it is unfair to the winning party and an unnecessary burden on the courts to allow repeated litigation of the same issue in what is essentially the same controversy, even if the issue is regarded as one of ‘law’.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments §28, Comment b (1982).

Thus in Montana, without assigning the label “issue of law” to the claim sought to be relitigated, we determined that the exception was inapplicable because of the close alignment of time and subject matter between the state-court action and the federal-court action. If the exception was inapplicable in Montana, as we held that it was, we have no trouble concluding that it is also inapplicable here.

Both Stauffer I and Stauffer II arose as a result of EPA’s overview inspection program for supervising state efforts to enforce national air quality standards. See n. 1, supra. In both cases private contractors, in addition to EPA and state employees, tried to inspect plants owned by respondent. The inspections occurred just over two weeks apart, and in each case, Stauffer refused to allow the private contractors to enter its plant. Any factual differences between the two cases, such as the difference in the location of the plants and the difference in the private contracting firms involved, are of no legal significance whatever in resolving the issue presented in both cases.

Admittedly the purpose underlying the exception for “unmixed questions of law” in successive actions on unrelated claims is far from clear. But whatever its purpose or extent, we think that there is no reason to apply it here to allow the Government to litigate twice with the same party an issue arising in both cases from virtually identical facts. Indeed we think that applying an exception to the doctrine of mutual defensive estoppel in this case would substantially frustrate the doctrine’s purpose of protecting litigants from burdensome relitigation and of promoting judicial economy. See Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U. S. 322, 326 (1979).

The Government attempts unpersuasively to supply justifications for overriding those economy concerns and allowing relitigation in cases such as this one. It argues here, as it did in United States v. Mendoza, ante, p. 154, that the application of collateral estoppel in Government litigation involving recurring issues of public importance will freeze the development of the law. But we concluded in United States v. Mendoza that that argument is persuasive only to prevent the application of collateral estoppel against the Government in the absence of mutuality. When estoppel is applied in a case where the Government is litigating the same issue arising under virtually identical facts against the same party, as here, the Government’s argument loses its force. The Sixth Circuit’s decision prevents EPA from relitigating the § 114(a)(2) issue with Stauffer, but it still leaves EPA free to litigate the same issue in the future with other litigants.

The Government also argues that because EPA is a federal agency charged with administering a body of law nationwide, the application of collateral estoppel against it will require EPA to apply different rules to similarly situated parties, thus resulting in an inequitable administration of the law. For example, EPA points to the situation created by the recent decision in Bunker Hill Company Lead & Zinc Smelter v. EPA, 658 F. 2d 1280 (1981), where the Ninth Circuit accepted EPA’s argument that § 114(a)(2) authorizes inspections by private contractors. EPA argues that if it is foreclosed from relitigating the statutory issue with Stauffer, then Stauffer plants within the Ninth Circuit will benefit from a rule precluding inspections by private contractors while plants of Stauffer’s competitors will be subject to the Ninth Circuit’s contrary rule. Tr. of Oral Arg. 17-18. Whatever the merits of EPA’s argument, for the purpose of deciding this case, it is enough to say that the issue of whether EPA would be estopped in the Ninth Circuit is not before the Court. Following our usual practice of deciding no more than is necessary to dispose of the case before us, we express no opinion on that application of collateral estoppel.

We therefore find the Government’s arguments unpersuasive in this case as justifications for limiting otherwise applicable rules of estoppel. Because we conclude that the Court of Appeals was correct in applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel against the Government here, we decline to reach the merits of the statutory question in this case. See Montana v. United States, 440 U. S., at 153. On the estoppel issue, therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Justice White,

concurring in the result.

I agree with the majority that within the Tenth Circuit Stauffer is insulated from further litigation with the EPA on the private contractor issue. Though it is a harder question, I also agree that the court below correctly found that the EPA was barred from litigating this issue with Stauffer in the Sixth Circuit, which had not adopted a position on the merits. I write separately because I do not believe that estoppel should be applied any further than that.

I — H

Relying on Montana v. United States, 440 U. S. 147 (1979), the majority states that the limits to collateral estop-pel on unmixed questions of law, whatever they may be, are not exceeded here where the Government has attempted “to litigate twice with the same party an issue arising in both cases from virtually identical facts.” Ante, at 172. Two cases need not arise from the very same facts or transaction to constitute the same “demand.” Ante, at 172, n. 5. “Any factual differences between the two cases, such as the difference in the location of the plants and the difference in the private contracting firms involved, are of no legal significance whatever in resolving the issue presented in both cases.” Ante, at 172. Thus, this case falls squarely within Montana.

Montana’s relevance to this case seems to me more limited. Montana involved duplicative suits, filed a month apart and each challenging the same state tax on the same contractor working on the same project. The two suits in this case do not seem to me to be as close as those in Montana. Assuming, however, that the two “demands” here are as closely related factually as those in Montana, application of collateral estoppel is still not compelled. The majority’s reasoning would be plausible if the second attempted inspection occurred at a different plant and with a different contractor, but within the same circuit as the first. It may be of “legal significance,” however, that the inspections occurred in different jurisdictions.

It is true that in Montana the first lawsuit was brought in state court and the second in federal. However, the two courts had concurrent jurisdiction. The Government had the initial choice of suing in either. Having made that choice, it was held to it. See 440 U. S., at 163. This case presents a different situation. The Wyoming inspection could not have been litigated in the Sixth Circuit; the Tennessee inspection could not have been litigated in the Tenth Circuit. It may be fair to say that if the second claim could not have been brought in the same court as the first, it is a different “demand.” Cf. Montana, supra, at 153 (collateral estoppel is “central to the purpose for which civil courts have been established, the conclusive resolution of disputes within their jurisdictions”) (emphasis added). In addition, there are considerations of comity in the state/federal situation that are not present as between two circuits. See, e. g., Allen v. McCurry, 449 U. S. 90, 95-96 (1980).

I do not rely on this conception of the same “demand,” however. For even if Montana’s delineation of the same “demand” does extend beyond jurisdictional boundaries, there is no justification for applying collateral estoppel, which is a flexible, judge-made doctrine, in situations where the policy concerns underlying it are absent. The notion of the “same demand” is at most a guide to identifying instances where policy does support preclusion. The Montana Court itself was very careful to examine general policy reasons for and against preclusion. 440 U. S., at 155, 158-164. Its decision was anything but an inflexible application of preclusion. Because the two suits were on the same demand, the unmixed question of law exception did not apply; but Montana neither began nor ended with this question, and neither should the Court here. Preclusion must be evaluated in light of the policy concerns underlying the doctrine.

1 — 1 1 — 1

Collateral estoppel is generally said to have three purposes: to “relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.” Allen v. McCurry, swpra, at 94. It is plain that all three purposes are served by foreclosing further litigation on this issue between these parties in the Tenth Circuit, and that Stauffer should therefore be fully insulated against relitigation there. The Government argues that even in the Tenth Circuit it is entitled to attempt to inspect Stauffer with private contractors and to relitigate this issue “after an appropriate time,” which it estimates at one year. Such an approach would authorize exactly the sort of duplica-tive litigation that collateral estoppel is designed to avoid. Cf. United States v. Moser, 266 U. S. 236 (1924). Thus, I unhesitatingly agree with the majority in its rejection of the Government’s position.

H — I I — i

Outside the Tenth Circuit, the policies of judicial economy and consistency are much less compelling. At least where, as here, one party is a governmental agency administering a public law, judicial economy is not advanced; the Government can always force a ruling on the merits by suing someone else. See ante, at 173. See generally United States v. Mendoza, ante, p. 154. And if the circuit has ruled on the merits in another case, reliance on stare decisis is no more burdensome than reliance on collateral estoppel. The policy against inconsistent decisions is much less relevant outside the original circuit. Conflicts in the circuits are generally accepted and in some ways even welcomed. Indeed, were consistency a compelling concern as between circuits, the decision of one circuit would bind the others even in litigation between two entirely different parties. That is not the route the federal courts have followed. However, applying collateral estoppel in other circuits would spare Stauffer the burden of fighting a battle that it has won once. In the absence of countervailing considerations, I am satisfied that this interest is adequate to support the lower court's ruling here. See ante, at 172.

IV

Preclusion was justified, however, only because the Sixth Circuit had not previously ruled on the Clean Air Act issue. Stauffer argues that Stauffer I also immunizes it in the Ninth Circuit, which has adopted a different rule than the Tenth on the merits. See Bunker Hill Co. Lead & Zinc Smelter v. EPA, 658 F. 2d 1280 (1981). Under this view private contractors may join EPA inspections of all plants in that Circuit except those owned by Stauffer. The majority does not address this contention, considering it “more than is necessary to dispose of the case before us.” Ante, at 174. I do address it, however, for it is only because today’s result does not afford Stauffer the blanket protection it seeks that I concur in the judgment.

A

Extending preclusion to circuits that have adopted a contrary rule on the merits would be acceptable were it supported by any affirmative policy. It is not. Judicial economy is not served for the simple reason that no litigation is prevented; the prior litigant is subject to one black-letter rule rather than another. For the same reason, there is no concern about protecting the prior litigant from repetitious, vexatious, or harassing litigation. Finally, to the extent the policy against inconsistent decisions remains relevant when a circuit conflict exists, it cuts the other way. At least some measure of consistency and certainty is obtained by evenhanded application of rules within individual circuits.

B

Not only is there no affirmative reason for preclusion in such circumstances, powerful considerations cut the other way. Cf. Standefer v. United States, 447 U. S. 10, 25 (1980). The inconsistency is more dramatic and more troublesome than a normal circuit split; by definition, it compounds that problem. It would be dubious enough were the EPA unable to employ private contractors to inspect Stauffer’s plants within the Ninth Circuit even though it can use such contractors in inspecting other plants. But the disarray is more extensive. By the same application of mutual collateral estoppel, the EPA could presumably use private contractors to inspect Bunker Hill’s plants in circuits like the Tenth, despite the fact that other companies are not subject to such inspections. Furthermore, Stauffer concedes, and today we hold in Mendoza, that the EPA can relitigate this matter as to other companies. As a result, in, say, the First Circuit, the EPA must follow one rule as to Bunker Hill, the opposite as to Stauffer, and, depending on any ruling by that Circuit, one or the other or a third as to other companies.

This confusing state of affairs far exceeds in awkwardness a normal split in the circuits. It is especially undesirable because it grants a special benefit to, or imposes a special detriment on, particular companies. In general, persons present in several circuits must conduct themselves in accordance with varying rules, just as they are subject to different state laws. Other companies with plants in several circuits do not enjoy a favorable rule nationwide, like Stauffer, nor do they have to put up with an unfavorable rule nationwide, like Bunker Hill. A split in the circuits cannot justify abandonment of all efforts at evenhanded and rational application of legal rules. Nor is the mere fact that these companies happen to have been involved in litigation elsewhere sufficient reason for uniquely favored or disfavored status.

Such misapplication of collateral estoppel has been condemned by this Court before. For example, in United States v. Stone & Downer Co., 274 U. S. 225 (1927), it had been established in a prior action that certain imports were duty free. In a later suit involving the classification of similar goods imported by the same defendant, the Court of Customs Appeals refused to apply collateral estoppel and this Court affirmed. Application of the doctrine would mean that an importer, having once obtained a favorable judgment, would be able to undersell others, while an importer having lost a case would be unable to compete. “Such a result would lead to inequality in the administration of the customs law, to discrimination and to great injustice and confusion.” Id., at 236. The same concerns were evident in Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U. S. 591 (1948). There the Court noted the inequality that would flow from blanket application of collateral estoppel in the tax area. „ A taxpayer is not entitled to the benefit of his judgment if there has been “a subsequent . . . change or development in the controlling legal principles.” Id., at 599. Otherwise, he would enjoy preferential treatment. Such discrimination is to be avoided, because collateral estoppel “is not meant to create vested rights in decisions that have become obsolete or erroneous with time, thereby causing inequities among taxpayers.” Ibid.

There is no real difference between those cases and this one. In each, the prior litigant escapes strictures that apply to others solely because he litigated the issue once before and prevailed. As the Restatement points out, “[rjefusal of preclusion is ordinarily justified if the effect of applying preclusion is to give one person a favored position in current administration of a law.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments §28, Comment c (1982).

C

Cases like Sunnen and Stone & Downer merely recognize that collateral estoppel on issues of law, which is a narrow, flexible, judge-made doctrine, becomes intolerable if the rule of law at issue is too far removed from the prevailing legal rules. Even Stauffer concedes that a decision from this Court on the merits would so affect the “controlling law” that it would lose the entire benefit of the initial judgment in its favor. Similarly, no one contends that if Congress amended the statute to make the opposite result plain, Stauffer could continue to rely on the original judgment. And presumably if the Tenth Circuit were to reverse itself, en banc, and hold that private contractors could make EPA inspections, then Stauffer would no longer be able to keep them out on the authority of Stauffer I. Finally, it is apparent that if, for example, Stauffer has plants in Canada, it cannot impose the Tenth Circuit’s inspection requirements on the Canadian authorities. Why then should Stauffer be able to use the decisions of the Sixth and Tenth Circuits to estop the Government in the Ninth Circuit, where the opposite rule prevails? The decisions of those other Circuits are not the “controlling law” in the Ninth; the controlling law in the Ninth is exactly to the contrary. There is no difference between this situation and that where the law within a particular jurisdiction has changed since the initial decision.

V

The doctrine of collateral estoppel is designed to ensure litigants the benefit of prior litigation; this is not the same as ensuring them the benefits of a prior ruling. In arguing that Stauffer I precludes the EPA nationwide from relitigat-ing this issue against it, Stauffer stretches the doctrine beyond the breaking point. It claims a right to a unique status. Put differently, Stauffer claims immunity from a particular legal rule, not immunity from farther litigation. At this point considerations of economy are no longer involved, and Stauffer’s approach leads to results that are basically inconsistent with the principle of evenhanded administration of the laws.

In sum, I concur in the judgment of the Court. I do so with the view that preclusion is inappropriate in circuits that have adopted, or later adopt, the contrary legal rule.

       To carry out its role under the Clean Air Act of supervising the States in their enforcement of national air quality standards, see 84 Stat. 1678, 1680, 1685, 42 U. S. C. §§ 7407, 7410, 7412 (1976 ed., Supp. V), EPA annually inspects approximately 10% of the major stationary sources of air pollution within each State. See Brief for United States 1, n. 2. Section 114(a)(2) provides that “the Administrator or his authorized representative, upon presentation of his credentials . . . shall have a right of entry” to conduct such inspections. 42 U. S. C. § 7414(a)(2) (1976 ed., Supp. V).

       Stauffer raised its estoppel argument for the first time in the Court of Appeals. It did not argue to the District Court in Tennessee that EPA should be estopped by the prior decision of the Wyoming District Court in Stauffer I. Although the Wyoming District Court had decided Stauffer I
        by the time the Tennessee District Court decided this case, it had relied on alternative grounds for its decision. See In re Stauffer Chemical Co., 14 ERC 1737 (1980). By the time this case reached the Sixth Circuit, however, the Tenth Circuit had affirmed the District Court in Stauffer I solely on the ground that § 114(a)(2) does not authorize inspections by private contractors.

       The description of the exception in United States v. Moser is not very illuminating. There we stated:
      “[Estoppel] does not apply to unmixed questions of law. Where, for example, a court in deciding a case has enunciated a rule of law, the parties in a subsequent action upon a different demand are not estopped from insisting that the law is otherwise, merely because the parties are the same in both cases. But a fact, question or right distinctly adjudged in the original action cannot be disputed in a subsequent action, even though the determination was reached upon an erroneous view or by an erroneous application of the law.” 266 U. S., at 242 (emphasis in original).
      In Montana we paraphrased the exception as applying to “issues of law [which] arise in successive actions involving unrelated subject matter.” 440 U. S., at 162.

       An exception which requires a rigid determination of whether an issue is one of fact, law, or mixed fact and law, as a practical matter, would often be impossible to apply because “the journey from a pure question of fact to a pure question of law is one of subtle gradations rather than one marked by a rigid divide.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 28, Comment b (1982).

       The Government argues for a broader interpretation of the exception. Relying on Moser1 s language that parties are not estopped in a “subsequent action upon a different demand,” United States v. Moser, 266 U. S., at 242, the Government argues that two cases must have more in common than the same parties and the same legal issue to constitute the same “demand” for estoppel purposes. Thus the Government’s argument essentially is that two cases presenting the same legal issue must arise from the very same facts or transaction before an estoppel can be applied. Whatever applicability that interpretation may have in the tax context, see Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U. S. 591, 601-602 (1948) (refusing to apply an estoppel when two tax cases presenting the same issue arose from “separable facts”), we reject its general applicability outside of that context.

       Thus the application of an estoppel in eases such as this one will require no alteration of this Court’s practice of waiting for conflicts to develop before granting the Government’s petitions for certiorari, nor in the Solicitor General’s policy of circumspection in determining when to pursue appeals or file certiorari petitions. See United States v. Mendoza, ante, p. 154.
      The Government argues, however, that in deciding whether to appeal an adverse decision, the Solicitor General has no way of knowing whether future litigation will arise with the same or a different party. The Government thus argues that the mere possibility of being bound in the future will influence the Solicitor General to appeal or seek certiorari from adverse decisions when such action would otherwise be unwarranted. The Government lists as an example Stauffer I, from which the Government did not seek certiorari because there was no circuit conflict at the time of the Tenth Circuit’s decision. Yet, taking the issue here as an example, the Government itself asserts that “thousands of businesses are affected each year by the question of contractor participation in Section 114 inspections.” Brief for United States 28. It is thus unrealistic to assume that the Government would be driven to pursue an unwarranted appeal here because of fear of being unable to relitigate the § 114 issue in the future with a different one of those thousands of affected parties.

       According to the Restatement, relitigation of an issue is not precluded if “[t]he issue is one of law and (a) the two actions involve claims that are substantially unrelated, or (b) a new determination is warranted in order to take account of an intervening change in the applicable legal context or otherwise to avoid inequitable administration of the laws . ...” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 28 (1982). Even if part (a) is inapplicable in the circumstances of this case, it seems clear to me that both prongs of part (b) apply to litigation in a circuit where the prevailing legal rule is different from that established in earlier litigation in another jurisdiction.

       This distinction is perhaps reflected in the “same demand” limitation on estoppel on pure issues of law. As Professor Scott wrote four decades ago, “if a court erroneously holds that a gratuitous promise is binding, that holding is not conclusive as to subsequent contracts made between the same parties.” Scott, Collateral Estoppel by Judgment, 56 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 7 (1942). See also United States v. Moser, 266 U. S. 236, 242 (1924) (res judicata “does not apply to unmixed questions of law . . . [b]ut a fact, question or right distinctly adjudged in the original action cannot be disputed in a subsequent action”) (emphasis in original). The distinction is between an abstract legal proposition and the application of that proposition to particular facts.


author: Justice O’Connor

text:
    IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE v. PHINPATHYA
    No. 82-91.
    Argued October 3, 1983
    Decided January 10, 1984

      Elliott Schulder argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Jensen, and Deputy Solicitor General Getter.

      Bert D. Greenberg argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Martin Simone.

        James J. Orlow filed a brief for the American Immigration Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.

   Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In § 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 66 Stat. 214, as amended, 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a)(1), Congress provided that the Attorney General in his discretion may suspend deportation and adjust the status of an otherwise deportable alien who (1) “has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than seven years”; (2) “is a person of good moral character”; and (3) is “a person whose deportation would, in the opinion of the Attorney General, result in extreme hardship to the alien or to his spouse, parent, or child . . . In this case we must decide the meaning of §244(a)(l)’s “continuous physical presence” requirement.

I

Respondent, a native and citizen of Thailand, first entered the United States as a nonimmigrant student in October 1969. Respondent’s husband, also a native and citizen of Thailand, entered the country in August 1968. Respondent and her husband were authorized to remain in the United States until July 1971. However, when their visas expired, they chose to stay without securing permission from the immigration authorities.

In January 1977, petitioner, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), commenced deportation proceedings against respondent and her husband pursuant to § 241(a)(2) of the Act. See 8 U. S. C. § 1251(a)(2). Respondent and her husband conceded deportability and applied for suspension pursuant to § 244(a)(1). 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a)(1). An Immigration Judge found that respondent’s husband had satisfied § 244(a)(l)’s eligibility requirements and suspended his deportation. App. to Pet. for Cert. 29a-31a. But respondent’s own testimony showed that she had left the country during January 1974, and that she had improperly obtained a non-immigrant visa from the United States consular officer in Thailand to aid her reentry three months later. On the basis of this evidence, the Immigration Judge concluded that respondent had failed to meet the 7-year “continuous physical presence” requirement of the Act:

“[Respondent’s] absence was not brief, innocent, or casual. The absence would have been longer than three months if she had not obtained the spouse of a student visa as fast as. she did obtain it. It was not casual because she had to obtain a new Tha[i] passport, as well as a nonimmigrant visa from the American Consul, to return to the United States. It was not innocent because she failed to inform the American Consul that she was the wife of a student who had been out of status for three years (and therefore not entitled to the nonimmi-grant visa she received).” Id., at 28a.

Accordingly, he denied respondent’s application for suspension. Id., at 28a-29a.

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision on the “continuous physical presence” issue. BIA observed that respondent was illegally in the United States at the time she left for Thailand and that she was able to return only by misrepresenting her status as the wife of a foreign student. Id., at 17a-18a. Based on these observations, BIA concluded that respondent’s absence was meaningfully interruptive of her continuous physical presence in the United States. Ibid.

The Court of Appeals reversed. 673 F. 2d 1013 (CA9 1981). It noted that, although respondent traveled to Thailand for three months, “she intended, at all times, to return to the United States.” Id., at 1017. The court held that BIA had placed too much emphasis on respondent’s illegal presence prior to her departure and on the increased risk of deportation that her departure had engendered. Id., at 1017-1018. Finding BIA’s approach legally erroneous, it concluded that

“an absence cannot be ‘meaningfully interruptive’ if two factors are present: (1) the hardships would be as severe if the absence had not occurred, and (2) there would not be an increase in the risk of deportation as a result of the absence.” Id., at 1018, and n. 6 (citing Kamheangpatiyooth v. INS, 597 F. 2d 1253, 1257 (CA9 1979)).

Since BIA failed “to view the circumstances in their totality, and analyze those circumstances in light of the [underlying] Congressional purpose,” 673 F. 2d, at 1017, the court remanded for further proceedings on the “continuous physical presence” issue.

We granted certiorari, 459 U. S. 965 (1982), to review the meaning of § 244(a)(l)’s requirement that an otherwise deport-able alien have been “physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than seven years . . . 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a)(1). We find that the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of this statutory requirement departs from the plain meaning of the Act.

h-t

This Court has noted on numerous occasions that “in all cases involving statutory construction, ‘our starting point must be the language employed by Congress/ . . . and we assume ‘that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used/” American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U. S. 63, 68 (1982), quoting Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U. S. 330, 337 (1979), and Richards v. United States, 369 U. S. 1, 9 (1962). The language of § 244(a)(1) requires certain threshold criteria to be met before the Attorney General or his delegates, in their discretion, may suspend proceedings against an otherwise deportable alien. This language plainly narrows the class of aliens who may obtain suspension by requiring each applicant for such extraordinary relief to prove that he

“has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the date of such application, . . . that during all of such period he was and is a person of good moral character; and is a person whose deportation would, in the opinion of the Attorney General, result in extreme hardship to the alien or to his spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence . . . .” 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a)(1).

The ordinary meaning of these words does not readily admit any “exception[s] to the requirement of seven years of ‘continuous physica[l] presence’ in the United States to be eligible for suspension of deportation.” McColvin v. INS, 648 F. 2d 935, 937 (CA4 1981).

By contrast, when Congress in the past has intended for a “continuous physical presence” requirement to be flexibly administered, it has provided the authority for doing so. For example, former § 301(b) of the Act, which required two years of “continuou[s] physica[l] presence]” for maintenance of status as a United States national or citizen, provided that “absence from the United States of less than sixty days in the aggregate during the period for which continuous physical presence in the United States is required shall not break the continuity of such physical presence.” 86 Stat. 1289, repealing 71 Stat. 644 (12-month aggregate absence does not break continuity of physical presence). The deliberate omission of a similar moderating provision in § 244(a)(1) compels the conclusion that Congress meant this “continuous physical presence” requirement to be administered as written.

Indeed, the evolution of the deportation provision itself shows that Congress knew how to distinguish between actual “continuous physical presence” and some irreducible minimum of “nonintermittent” presence. Prior to 1940, the Attorney General had no discretion in ordering deportation, and an alien’s sole remedy was to obtain a private bill from Congress. See INS v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U. S. 139, 140, and n. 1 (1981). In 1940, Congress authorized the Attorney General to suspend deportation of aliens of good moral character whose deportation “would result in serious economic detriment” to the aliens or their families. See 54 Stat. 672. Then, in 1948, Congress amended the statute again to make the suspension process available to aliens who “resided continuously in the United States for seven years or more” and who could show good moral character for the preceding five years, regardless of family ties. 62 Stat. 1206. Finally, in 1952, “in an attempt to discontinue lax practices and discourage abuses,” Congress replaced the 7-year “continuous residence” requirement with the current 7-year “continuous physical presence” requirement. H. R. Rep. No. 1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 31 (1952). It made the criteria for suspension of deportation more stringent both to restrict the opportunity for discretionary action, see ibid., and to exclude

“aliens [who] are deliberately flouting our immigration laws by the processes of gaining admission into the United States illegally or ostensibly as nonimmigrants but with the intention of establishing themselves in a situation in which they may subsequently have access to some administrative remedy to adjust their status to that of permanent residents.” S. Rep. No. 1137, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1, p. 25 (1952).

Had Congress been concerned only with “nonintermittent” presence or with the mere maintenance of a domicile or general abode, it could have retained the “continuous residence” requirement. Instead, Congress expressly opted for the 7-year “continuous physical presence” requirement.

The statutory switch from “continuous residence” to “continuous physical presence” was no simple accident of draftsmanship. Congress broadened the class of aliens eligible for admission to citizenship by requiring only five years’ “continuous residence” and “physical presence” for at least half the period of residency. Concomitantly, it made § 244(a)(1) more restrictive; suspensions of deportations are “grossly unfair to aliens who await abroad their turn on quota waiting lists,” and Congress wanted to limit the number of aliens allowed to remain through discretionary action. The citizenship and suspension-of-deportation provisions are interrelated parts of Congress’ comprehensive scheme for admitting aliens into this country. We do justice to this scheme only by applying the “plain meaning of [§ 244(a)(1)], however severe the consequences.” Jay v. Boyd, 351 U. S. 345, 357 (1956). The Court of Appeals’ inquiry into whether the hardship to be suffered upon deportation has been diminished by the alien’s absence fails to do so.

I — ( t — < HH

Respondent contends that we should approve the Court of Appeals’ “generous” and “liberal” construction of the “continuous physical presence” requirement notwithstanding the statute’s plain language and history. Brief for Respondent 10 (quoting Kamheangpatiyooth v. INS, 597 F. 2d, at 1256, and n. 3). She argues that the Court of Appeals’ construction is in keeping both with our decision in Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U. S. 449 (1963), and with the equitable and ameliorative nature of the suspension remedy. We disagree.

A

In Fleuti, this Court held that a lawful permanent resident alien’s return to the United States after an afternoon trip to Mexico did not constitute an “entry” within the meaning of § 101(a)(13) of the Act. We construed the term “intended” in the statutory exception to the definition of “entry” to mean an “intent to depart in a manner which can be regarded as meaningfully interruptive of the alien’s permanent residence.” Id., at 462. We interpreted the statute not to allow a lawful resident alien like Fleuti to be excluded “for a condition for which he could not have been deported had he remained in the country,” id., at 460, because it would subject the alien to “unsuspected risks and unintended consequences of . . . wholly innocent action.” Id., at 462. Since Fleuti had gone to Mexico, without travel documents, for only a few hours, we remanded for a determination whether his departure had been “innocent, casual, and brief,” and so not “meaningfully interruptive” of his permanent residence. Id., at 461, 462.

Fleuti is essentially irrelevant to the adjudication of respondent’s § 244(a)(1) suspension application. Fleuti dealt with a statutory exception enacted precisely to ameliorate the harsh effects of prior judicial construction of the “entry” doctrine. See id., at 457-462. By contrast, this case deals with a threshold requirement added to the statute specifically to limit the discretionary availability of the suspension remedy. See supra, at 190-191. Thus, whereas a flexible approach to statutory construction was consistent with the congressional purpose underlying § 101(a)(13), such an approach would not be consistent with the congressional purpose underlying the “continuous physical presence” requirement. Ibid.

In Fleuti, the Court believed that Congress had not considered the “meaningless and irrational hazards” that a strict application of the “entry” provision could create. Thus, it inferred that Congress would not have approved of the otherwise harsh consequences that would have resulted to Fleuti. See 374 U. S., at 460-462. Here, by contrast, we have every reason to believe that Congress considered the harsh consequences of its actions. Congress expressly provided a mechanism for factoring “extreme hardship” into suspension of deportation decisions. We would have to ignore the clear congressional mandate and the plain meaning of the statute to find that Fleuti is applicable to the determination whether an otherwise deportable alien has been “physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than seven years . . . .” 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a)(1). We refuse to do so.

We also note, though it is not essential to our decision, that Fleuti involved the departure of a lawful resident alien who, but for his departure, otherwise had a statutory right to remain in this country. This case, by contrast, deals with the departure of an unlawful alien who could have been deported even had she remained in this country. Such an alien has no basis for expecting the Government to permit her to remain in the United States or to readmit her upon her return from foreign soil. Thus, respondent simply is not being excluded “for a condition for which [she] could not have been deported had [she] remained in the country . . . .” 374 U. S., at 460.

B

Respondent further suggests that we approve the Court of Appeals’ articulation of the “continuous physical presence” standard — that an absence is “meaningfully interruptive” only when it increases the risk and reduces the hardship of deportation — as consistent with the ameliorative purpose of, and the discretion of the Attorney General to grant, the suspension remedy. Brief for Respondent 6-11. Respondent’s suggestion is without merit.

Although § 244(a)(1) serves a remedial purpose, the liberal interpretation respondent suggests would collapse §244 (a)(l)’s “continuous physical presence” requirement into its “extreme hardship” requirement and read the former out of the Act. The language and history of that section suggest that “continuous physical presence” and “extreme hardship” are separate preconditions for a suspension of deportation. See n. 9, supra. It strains the statutory language to construe the “continuous physical presence” requirement as requiring yet a further assessment of hardship.

It is also clear that Congress intended strict threshold criteria to be met before the Attorney General could exercise his discretion to suspend deportation proceedings. Congress drafted §244(a)(l)’s provisions specifically to restrict the opportunity for discretionary administrative action. Respondent’s suggestion that we construe the Act to broaden the Attorney General’s discretion is fundamentally inconsistent with this intent. In INS v. Jong Ha Wang, we rejected a relaxed standard for evaluating the “extreme hardship” requirement as impermissibly shifting discretionary authority from INS to the courts. 450 U. S., at 146. Respondent’s suggestion that we construe the Act to broaden the Attorney General’s discretion analogously would shift authority to relax the “continuous physical presence” requirement from Congress to INS and, eventually, as is evident from the experience in this case, to the courts. We must therefore reject respondent’s suggestion as impermissible in our tripartite scheme of government. Congress designs the immigration laws, and it is up to Congress to temper the laws’ rigidity if it so desires.

IV

The Court of Appeals’ approach ignores the plain meaning of § 244(a)(1) and extends eligibility to aliens whom Congress clearly did not intend to be eligible for suspension of deportation. Congress meant what it said: otherwise deportable aliens must show that they have been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of seven years before they are eligible for suspension of deportation. The judgment of the Court of Appeals therefore is

Reversed.

Justice Brennan, with whom Justice Marshall and Justice Stevens join, concurring in the judgment.

The Court today holds that an unexplained 3-month absence from the United States disqualifies an alien from eligibility for relief from deportation under § 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a)(1), ante, this page, and further, that our decision inRosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U. S. 449 (1963), is essentially irrelevant in the § 244(a)(1) context, ante, at 192-194. I agree with both of these conclusions. In the process of reaching them, however, the Court seems to imply that Congress intended the term “continuous” in the phrase “physically present... for a continuous period” to be interpreted literally, ante, at 189, 195-196. If that is what the Court implies, the status of temporary absences far different from the one at issue in this case — for example, a short vacation in Mexico, see Wadman v. INS, 329 F. 2d 812 (CA9 1964), an inadvertent train ride through Canada while en route from Buffalo to Detroit, see Di Pasquale v. Karnuth, 158 F. 2d 878 (CA2 1947), a trip to one’s native country to tend to an ailing parent, or some other type of temporary absence that has no meaningful bearing on the attachment or commitment an alien has to this country — would presumably be treated no differently from the absence at issue today. Because such absences need not be addressed to decide this case, and, in any event, because I believe that Congress did not intend the continuous-physical-presenee requirement to be read literally, I part company with the Court insofar as a contrary interpretation may be implied.

I

In this case, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) argues that the Court of Appeals has taken too liberal a view of the continuous-physical-presence requirement. It does not argue, however, that the requirement should be interpreted literally; nor does it brief the question whether literally continuous, physical presence should be a prerequisite to suspension of deportation. Indeed, at oral argument, counsel for the INS stated that “the [INS] believes that there is room for flexibility in applying [§ 244(a)(1)].” Tr. of Oral Arg. 8. In light of this express position of the INS, the agency charged with responsibility for administering the immigration laws, as well as the fact that respondent’s unexplained 3-month absence from the United States plainly disqualifies her for relief under any reasonable interpretation of § 244(a)(1), I would not address, by implication or otherwise, the question whether the continuous-physical-presence requirement was meant to be interpreted literally.

II

Moreover, if we are to understand that the Court implicitly approves of a literal interpretation of the statute, the error of its analysis is patent. It is a hornbook proposition that “[a]ll 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. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language, which would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter.” United States v. Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, 486-487 (1869). See also Helvering v. Hammel, 311 U. S. 504, 510 (1941); United States v. Katz, 271 U. S. 354, 362 (1926). In a case such as this, in which a literal interpretation of a statutory provision may indeed lead to absurd consequences, supra, at 197, we must look beyond the terms of the provision to the underlying congressional intent. And in this case, the legislative history of §244, far from compelling a wooden interpretation of the statutory language, in fact indicates that Congress intended the coritinuous-physical-presence requirement to be interpreted flexibly.

The Court suggests a contrary conclusion based on two factors: First, the fact that Congress enacted the continuous-physical-presence requirement in 1952 in response to abuses of the more lenient “residence” requirement, which had been in effect since 1948; and second, the fact that former § 301(b) of the Act, which imposed a 2-year continuous-physical-presence requirement upon foreign-bom citizens seeking to avoid the loss of their citizenship, explicitly provided that “absence from the United States of less than sixty days . . . shall not break the continuity of such physical presence. ” Ante, at 189-191. But plainly, neither of these aspects of the Act’s legislative history sheds meaningful light on the issue of whether the term “continuous” should be interpreted literally. It is true, of course, that Congress replaced the “residence” requirement with the continuous-physical-presence requirement in order to prevent abuses, as the Court states, ante, at 190-191, but the abuses identified by Congress are hardly in the nature of a vacation in Mexico, a train ride through Canada, or other similar absences that would defeat eligibility for relief under a literal reading of § 244(a)(1). Instead, Congress sought to prevent much more substantial abuses, such as a situation described in the Senate Report on the Act, in which an alien “has a total of 7 years’ residence in the United States [but] the alien has been out of the United States for as long as 2 years during the last 7 years.” S. Rep. No. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 602 (1950). Furthermore, although it is true that the 60-day leeway allowed under § 301(b) for foreign-born citizens has no counterpart in § 244(a)(1), this only indicates that Congress was unwilling to provide such generous and unrestricted leeway to aliens seeking suspension of deportation. It surely does not indicate that Congress intended every type of absence — however innocent or brief — to defeat an alien’s eligibility for relief. Finally, as the Court implicitly acknowledges, there is no direct statement in the legislative history of the 1952 Act to indicate that Congress intended to have the term “continuous” interpreted literally. It follows, then, that there is simply no support for giving § 244(a)(1) a literal interpretation.

Indeed, there is direct support for precisely the opposite conclusion in the legislative history of the 1962 amendments to the Act, in which Congress rewrote §244. The current version of §244, which barely resembles the original 1952 provision but which retains the continuous-physical-presence requirement, was enacted as part of those amendments. It is the congressional intent underlying the 1962 amendments, therefore, that is central to the question whether Congress meant to have the continuous-physical-presence requirement applied literally. And the legislative history of those amendments, whether viewed as reflecting the 1952 congressional understanding of the continuous-physical-presence requirement, or as establishing a new understanding in the 1962 revision, reveals an express congressional intent to have the term “continuous” interpreted more flexibly than a literal definition of the term would imply. Moreover, prior to the 1962 amendments, the only Court of Appeals that had occasion to interpret the continuous-physical-presence requirement held that the term “continuous” was not intended to be interpreted literally. McLeod v. Peterson, 283 F. 2d 180 (CA3 1960). In that case, the court reversed a decision of the INS, holding that an 8-month absence from the United States “does not interrupt the continuity of . . . presence in the United States within the meaning of [§ 244],” under circumstances in which the INS had induced the alien to leave the country without the authority to do so. Id., at 187. In explaining its decision, the court stated that § 244 had “sufficient flexibility to permit a rational effecting of the congressional intent.” Ibid. Of course, when Congress enacts a new law that incorporates language of a pre-existing law, Congress may be presumed to have knowledge of prior judicial interpretations of the language and to have adopted that interpretation for purposes of the new law. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U. S. 353, 382, n. 66 (1982); Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 580-581 (1978). Therefore, even in the absence of explicit indications of legislative intent, we would be justified in concluding that Congress intended to have the continuous-physical-presence requirement interpreted flexibly.

In any event, there are explicit indications in the legislative history of the 1962 amendments that Congress did not intend to enact a literal continuous-physical-presence requirement. The 1962 amendments originated as S. 3361. As introduced, the bill contained a provision that would have amended § 249 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 249, which originated in 1929, allows the Attorney General to confer permanent-residence status upon an alien who meets certain qualifications, such as “good moral character,” and establishes that he or she has resided in the United States since a statutorily provided date. S. 3361, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., §4 (1962). At the time of the 1962 amendments, the operative date was June 28, 1940, and S. 3361, as introduced, would have moved that date up to December 24, 1952. Under the Senate bill, therefore, relief from deportation would have been available to an alien who simply established “residence” since 1952, without regard to whether his or her physical presence in this country was literally continuous. The House, however, declined to amend §249. Instead, the House sent to the Conference Committee a bill that differed from the Senate bill in that it left June 28,1940, as the operative date of entry for relief under that section. 108 Cong. Rec. 22608-22609 (1962). The Conference Committee, however, compromised between the House and Senate versions of the bill by adopting an amendment to § 244, instead of an amendment to § 249. And it is that compromise that became the current version of § 244.

Basically, the new §244 differed from the 1952 version in two respects. First, it compressed a complicated system, in which eligible aliens had to meet one of five different sets of requirements for relief, depending on the cause of their deportability, into a simple two-category system based essentially on the severity of the reason giving rise to de-portability. For example, under the 1962 provision, aliens who are deportable for less severe offenses have to meet a 7-year continuous-physical-presence requirement, see 8 U. S. C. § 1254(a)(1), and those who are deportable for more severe offenses have to meet a 10-year continuous-physical-presence requirement. See § 1254(a)(2). Second, the new § 244 modified the hardship requirement for aliens who committed less severe offenses from one of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to one of “extreme hardship.”

In explaining the intent of the conferees, the Conference Report stated that “[t]he now proposed language is designed to achieve the purpose envisaged by the Senate in a modified manner.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 2552, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 4 (1962). That is to say, §244, as revised, was intended to extend relief from deportation to aliens residing in the United States since 1952, at the earliest. The Report then went on to explain that by revising § 244, rather than § 249, this liberalization of relief would be constrained by two factors that were already built into the first, but not the second, provision. Those factors were, first, a requirement that the Attorney General find that deportation would result in personal hardship before granting relief, and, second, a requirement that all grants of relief be subject to congressional review.

When the Conference Committee’s compromise was reported on the House floor, one manager stated that “we largely restore title 3 of the Smith Act of 1940 ... as the guide for the purpose of making a determination of eligibility and obtaining the approval of the Congress for the ruling of the Attorney General,” 108 Cong. Rec. 23421 (1962) (statement of Rep. Walter), and another simply restated the Conference Report’s emphasis on the congressional-review and personal-hardship provisions of the Conference bill, id., at 23423 (statement of Rep. Feighan). The reference to the Smith Act, formally titled the Alien Registration Act of 1940, is particularly significant because that statute, which contained the original suspension-of-deportation remedy, did not impose a continuous-physical-presence requirement. 54 Stat. 672. Under the Smith Act, residence in the United States provided a sufficient basis for the Attorney General to grant suspension of deportation. It is difficult to see, therefore, how this history suggests that the House intended to impose a literal continuous-physical-presence requirement.

Similarly, various statements made by Senators debating the Conference Committee’s version of the bill belie the presence of any intent to impose a strict continuous-physical-presence requirement as a prerequisite to relief. For instance, one of the managers of the bill on the Senate floor, Senator Keating, stated that “[n]o person who would have been eligible for administrative relief under section 249 as the Senate proposed and amended it, would be excluded from consideration for relief under section 244 as the conference report now proposes to amend it.” 108 Cong. Rec. 23448 (1962). As pointed out above, under the Senate’s original proposal, §249 would have covered aliens who resided in the United States since December 24, 1952, regardless of whether their residence amounted to a “continuous physical presence.” Senator Keating, therefore, was clearly stating that such aliens would be eligible for suspension of deportation under § 244 as rewritten by the Conference Committee, even though some of them undoubtedly had left the country temporarily during their period of residency here. Accordingly, unless we are willing to decide that the explanation of the statute provided by one of its principal sponsors was, for some reason, flatly wrong, we cannot conclude that the continuous-physical-presence requirement, as enacted in 1962, was intended to be interpreted literally.

To be sure, we gain only limited insight into congressional intent from statements made during floor debate and from conference reports, but we have always relied heavily upon authoritative statements by proponents of bills in our search for the meaning of legislation. Lewis v. United States, 445 U. S. 55, 63 (1980); FEA v. Algonquin SNG, Inc., 426 U. S. 548, 564 (1976). Of necessity, this is particularly true where, as here, a provision was introduced into a bill by a conference committee. The remarks of Senator Keating and the House managers, therefore, plainly illuminate Congress’ intent to achieve largely what an updating of § 249 would have achieved, except that the Attorney General was to be constrained by a personal-hardship requirement and congressional review.

It seems inescapable, therefore, that Congress did not intend to have the continuous-physical-presence requirement interpreted literally. Instead, under a proper construction of § 244(a)(1), the INS should remain free to apply the requirement flexibly, unconstrained by any limitation Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U. S. 449 (1963), may have imposed. Indeed, in substance, this interpretation conforms with the position of the INS since at least 1967, see Matter of Wong, 12 I. & N. Dec. 271 (1967), and is apparently the position to which the agency continues to adhere. See supra, at 197, and n. 1.

Ill

-Because the Court’s opinion seems to interpret the Immigration and Nationality Act in a way that is not briefed by the parties, is unnecessary to decide this case, is contrary to the view of the agency with principal responsibility for administering the Act, is unsupported by the statute’s legislative history, and would certainly produce unreaspnable results never envisioned by Congress, I cannot join the Court’s opinion, but concur only in the judgment.

       The Attorney General is authorized to delegate his powers under the Act. 8 U. S. C. §1103. Accordingly, 8 CFR §2.1 (1983) delegates the Attorney General’s power to the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, and permits the Commissioner to redelegate his authority through appropriate regulations. The Commissioner has delegated the power to consider § 244 applications to special inquiry officers, whose decisions are subject to review by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), 8 CFR §§242.8, 242.21 (1983).

       App. 17-24. About one month prior to her departure, respondent obtained a new Thai passport. Id., at 21-22. However, when she departed for Thailand, respondent did not have a nonimmigrant visa allowing her to reenter this country. After her arrival in Thailand, respondent went to the United States Consul and obtained a nonimmigrant visa as the wife of a foreign student. Although respondent was aware that her husband’s student visa had expired more than two years earlier, she failed to inform the consular officer of that fact. Id., at 23-24.

       BIA reversed the Immigration Judge’s decision that respondent’s false testimony at her deportation hearing did not bar her from establishing her good moral character. App. to Pet. for Cert. 18a-19a. BIA also reversed the Immigration Judge’s conclusion that respondent’s husband was eligible for suspension of deportation, ruling that he had failed to establish extreme hardship either to himself or his epileptic daughter, id., at 19a-21a.

       The “totality of the circumstances” approach was first articulated in Kamheangpatiyooth, which reaffirmed the Court of Appeals’ earlier ruling in Wadman v. INS, 329 F. 2d 812 (CA9 1964). See 597 F. 2d, at 1256. Wadman held that the principles established by this Court in Rosenberg
        v. Fleuti, 374 U. S. 449 (1963) (interpreting whether a lawful resident alien had made an “entry” within the meaning of 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(13)), should also guide the determination whether an intervening absence interrupts the continuity of physical presence for purposes of § 244(a)(1). 329 F. 2d, at 816. Kamheangpatiyooth concluded, however, that the principles enunciated in Fleuti were only “evidentiary” on the issue of whether a lawful resident’s departure meaningfully interrupts his continuous physical presence under § 244(a)(1). 597 F. 2d, at 1257.

       The Court of Appeals also overturned BIA’s finding that respondent was not of good moral character, and remanded for reconsideration of that issue. 673 F. 2d, at 1018-1020. In addition, it reversed BIA’s finding that respondent’s husband had failed to prove that extreme hardship would result from his deportation. Id., at 1016-1017. Petitioner questions both rulings, but did not seek certiorari review of them. See Brief for Petitioner 8, and n. 5. We accordingly express no opinion on these issues.

       Respondent contends that the case is moot. Brief for Respondent 1-6. She asserts that since her return from Thailand in April 1974, she has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of more than seven years. Accordingly, respondent claims that even if the Court were to reverse she could obtain suspension of deportation.
      Respondent’s mootness argument is without merit. Although respondent has filed a motion with BIA asking that her deportation proceeding be reopened, granting of the motion is entirely within BIA’s discretion. See 8 CFR § 3.2 (1983); INS v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U. S. 139, 143-144, and n. 5 (1981). Moreover, even if BIA does reopen the proceeding, there is no basis in the present record for concluding that BIA will determine that respondent is eligible for suspension of deportation. Counsel’s unsupported assertions in respondent’s brief do not establish that respondent could satisfy the “continuous physical presence” requirement. In short, we have no basis for concluding that the case is or will become moot.

       See also S. Rep. No. 1515, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 602 (1950) (criticism of the administrative interpretation of the 7-year residence provision).

       H. R. Rep. No. 1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 63 (1952).

       The 1952 Act also required an alien to show “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to qualify for suspension of deportation. 66 Stat. 214. In 1962, Congress amended § 244(a)(1) to require that the alien show deportation would result in “extreme hardship.” 76 Stat. 1248. It retained the literal “continuous physical presence” requirement word-for-word, although it added an express exception in § 244(b) for aliens who had served at least 24 months’ active service in the Armed Forces.
      Justice BRENNAN cites various statements, especially those of Senator Keating, in the legislative history of the 1962 amendments to support his belief that the Act should not be literally interpreted. See post, at 199-205. These statements, of course, relate not to the “continuous physical presence” requirement, which Congress retained as a strict condition precedent to deportation suspension, but to the “extreme hardship” requirement. As Senator Keating himself explained: “Section 244 as amended would permit aliens who have been physically present in the United States for 7 years, or, in more serious cases, for 10 years, to apply to the Attorney General for a suspension of deportation as under present section 244. The alien would have to show a specified degree of hardship .... The conference version of section 244 . . . has continuing future applicability to any alien who can satisfy either the 7- or the 10-year physical presence requirement in addition to the other criteria for suspension of deportation.” 108 Cong. Rec. 23448-23449 (1962).

       8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(13). That provision defines an “entry” as “any coming of an alien into the United States . . . except that an alien having a lawful permanent residence in the United States shall not be regarded as making an entry into the United States for the purposes of the immigration laws if the alien proves to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that his departure to a foreign port or place or to an outlying possession was not intended or reasonably to be expected by him . . . .”

      The question of an “entry” may properly be determined in an exclusion, as well as a deportation, hearing. See Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U. S. 21 (1982).

       In INS v. Jong Ha Wang, this Court observed that a narrow interpretation of the term “extreme hardship” was “consistent with the ‘extreme hardship’ language, which itself indicates the exceptional nature of the suspension remedy.” 450 U. S., at 145. Similarly, we find only the plain meaning of the “continuous physical presence” requirement to be consistent with the exceptional nature of the suspension remedy.

       The other Courts of Appeals, even though uncertain about Fleuti’s application to § 244(a)(1), have routinely rejected suspension of deportation applications of unlawful aliens who literally have not been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of seven years. See, e. g., Fidalgo/Velez v. INS, 697 P. 2d 1026 (CA11 1983); McColvin v. INS, 648 F. 2d 935 (CA4 1981); Heitland v. INS, 551 P. 2d 495 (CA2), cert. denied, 434 U. S. 819 (1977).

       The Solicitor General admits that prior to “the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 1964 in Wadman v. INS, 329 F. 2d 812, the lower courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals generally applied a strict, literal interpretation of the ‘continuous physical presence’ language in Section 244(a)(1) and held ineligible for suspension of deportation any alien who was absent from the United States during the seven year period, without regard to the circumstances surrounding the absence.” Brief for Petitioner 11-12 (citing cases). Our decision today frees INS from the strictures of Wadman and interprets the language as Congress has written it. Contrary to Justice Brennan’s suggestion, see post, at 197, neither we nor INS have authority to create “ ‘room for flexibility in applying’ ” § 244(a)(1) when the language chosen by Congress and its purpose are otherwise.

       Since at least 1967, the INS has interpreted the continuous-physical-presenee requirement flexibly. Matter of Wong, 12 I. & N. Dec. 271 (1967). Prior to 1967, the INS had purported to adopt a literal interpretation but had declined to apply that interpretation consistently. See n. 3, infra.

       Major commentators in this field have referred to the 1962 amendments as a “drasti[e] revis[ion]” of § 244. 2 C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, Immigration Law and Procedure § 7.9a (1983).

       Prior to the 1962 amendments, the INS generally purported to interpret the continuous-physical-presence requirement litérally, but on at least one occasion, the agency expressly declined to follow through with the literal approach. Matter of J-M-D-, 7 I. & N. Dec. 105 (1956). In explanation, the INS stated that “a statute should be construed so as to carry out the intent of the legislature, although such construction may seem contrary to the letter of the statute.” Id., at 107.

       The June 28,1940, date was left unchanged by the Conference Committee bill.

       accord, 2 C. Gordon & H. Rosenfield, supra n. 2.

       Actually, it was Title 2, not Title 3, of that Act that authorized the suspension of deportation. Title 3 had nothing to do with relief from deportation of any kind. I must assume, therefore, that the reference to “Title 3” was a misstatement.

       In light of the language that Congress enacted in 1962 and the historical development of that language, see ante, at 190-191, we would have to conclude that Senator Keating’s rhetoric was somewhat inaccurate to the extent that it implies that continuous physical presence means residence. This inaccuracy, however, does not detract from the basic point that Congress was not thinking in literal terms when it enacted § 244. If Congress did intend the term “continuous” to be interpreted literally, surely Senator Keating would not have been able to make the statement he made in support of the bill, at least not without some rejoinder.
      In support of its interpretation, the Court inexplicably points to another sentence of Senator Keating’s remarks in which he used the term “physically present.” Ante, at 191-192, n. 9. In that statement, the Senator did not, of course, define the meaning of those words — the issue in this case — or even employ the entire phrase with which we are concerned.