{"id":235,"date":"2019-12-27T19:39:28","date_gmt":"2019-12-27T19:39:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/live-cornell-law-review.pantheonsite.io\/?p=235"},"modified":"2025-03-10T16:42:02","modified_gmt":"2025-03-10T16:42:02","slug":"extending-united-states-v-mendoza-why-defensive-nonmutual-issue-preclusion-is-unavailable-against-the-federal-government","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/2019\/12\/27\/extending-united-states-v-mendoza-why-defensive-nonmutual-issue-preclusion-is-unavailable-against-the-federal-government\/","title":{"rendered":"Extending United States v. Mendoza: Why Defensive Nonmutual Issue Preclusion is Unavailable Against the Federal Government"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Imagine a situation where the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is looking to enforce the antifraud provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against two different companies, arising out of the same transaction. Now suppose the SEC sues Company A first. However, the court finds no violation based on the factual determinations of the transaction and renders a judgment refusing to impose liability against Company A. Unsatisfied, the SEC decides to sue Company B under the same provision. Company B, however, believes the factual issues were already litigated and determined against Company A and wants to preclude relitigation by simply applying the previous factual determinations to the current case. Can they do so? This legal mechanism is classified as&nbsp;defensive nonmutual issue preclusion.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_235_1('footnote_plugin_reference_235_1_1');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_235_1('footnote_plugin_reference_235_1_1');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_235_1_1\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">1<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">1. <em>See&nbsp;<\/em>47 AM. JUR. 2D&nbsp;<em>Judgments&nbsp;<\/em>\u00a7 551, Westlaw (database updated August 2019).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_235_1_1').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_235_1_1', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script>&nbsp;The United States Supreme Court has not addressed whether this mechanism is available against the federal government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This Note examines the use of defensive nonmutual issue preclusion against the federal government\u2014the basic question being whether the doctrine is available. In&nbsp;United States v. Mendoza, the Supreme Court announced that offensive non-mutual issue preclusion was unavailable against the federal government.<sup class=\"footnote_referrer\"><a role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" onclick=\"footnote_moveToReference_235_1('footnote_plugin_reference_235_1_2');\" onkeypress=\"footnote_moveToReference_235_1('footnote_plugin_reference_235_1_2');\" ><sup id=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_235_1_2\" class=\"footnote_plugin_tooltip_text\">2<\/sup><\/a><cite class=\"footnote_tooltip\"><span class=\"footnote-inner\">2. United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154, 164 (1984).<\/span><\/cite><\/sup><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> jQuery('#footnote_plugin_tooltip_235_1_2').tooltip({ tip: '#footnote_plugin_tooltip_text_235_1_2', tipClass: 'footnote_tooltip', effect: 'fade', predelay: 0, fadeInSpeed: 200, delay: 400, fadeOutSpeed: 200, position: 'top center', relative: true, offset: [-7, 0], });<\/script>&nbsp;The policy interests announced in&nbsp;Mendoza&nbsp;support expanding that exception to the defensive context.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Introduction will explain the pertinent terminology and set forth nonmutual issue preclusion\u2019s doctrinal development. Part I will provide a detailed analysis of how the law currently stands. Part II will analyze the current legal framework and argue that defensive nonmutual issue preclusion is likely unavailable against the federal government. Primarily, this extension flows from the policy arguments postulated in&nbsp;United States v. Mendoza.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><em>To read more, click here: <a href=\"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2020\/05\/Goodman-note-final.pdf\" data-type=\"link\" data-id=\"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2020\/05\/Goodman-note-final.pdf\">Extending United States v. Mendoza: Why Defensive Nonmutual Issue Preclusion is Unavailable Against the Federal Government<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n<div class=\"speaker-mute footnotes_reference_container\"> <div class=\"footnote_container_prepare\"><p><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_label pointer\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_235_1();\">References<\/span><span role=\"button\" tabindex=\"0\" class=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button\" style=\"display: none;\" onclick=\"footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_235_1();\">[<a id=\"footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_235_1\">+<\/a>]<\/span><\/p><\/div> <div id=\"footnote_references_container_235_1\" style=\"\"><table class=\"footnotes_table footnote-reference-container\"><caption class=\"accessibility\">References<\/caption> <tbody> \r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_235_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_235_1_1');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_235_1_1\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>1<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\"><em>See&nbsp;<\/em>47 AM. JUR. 2D&nbsp;<em>Judgments&nbsp;<\/em>\u00a7 551, Westlaw (database updated August 2019).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n<tr class=\"footnotes_plugin_reference_row\"> <th scope=\"row\" class=\"footnote_plugin_index_combi pointer\"  onclick=\"footnote_moveToAnchor_235_1('footnote_plugin_tooltip_235_1_2');\"><a id=\"footnote_plugin_reference_235_1_2\" class=\"footnote_backlink\"><span class=\"footnote_index_arrow\">&#8593;<\/span>2<\/a><\/th> <td class=\"footnote_plugin_text\">United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154, 164 (1984).<\/td><\/tr>\r\n\r\n <\/tbody> <\/table> <\/div><\/div><script type=\"text\/javascript\"> function footnote_expand_reference_container_235_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_235_1').show(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_235_1').text('\u2212'); } function footnote_collapse_reference_container_235_1() { jQuery('#footnote_references_container_235_1').hide(); jQuery('#footnote_reference_container_collapse_button_235_1').text('+'); } function footnote_expand_collapse_reference_container_235_1() { if (jQuery('#footnote_references_container_235_1').is(':hidden')) { footnote_expand_reference_container_235_1(); } else { footnote_collapse_reference_container_235_1(); } } function footnote_moveToReference_235_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_235_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } } function footnote_moveToAnchor_235_1(p_str_TargetID) { footnote_expand_reference_container_235_1(); var l_obj_Target = jQuery('#' + p_str_TargetID); if (l_obj_Target.length) { jQuery( 'html, body' ).delay( 0 ); jQuery('html, body').animate({ scrollTop: l_obj_Target.offset().top - window.innerHeight * 0.2 }, 380); } }<\/script>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Imagine a situation where the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is looking to enforce the antifraud provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against two different companies, arising out of the same transaction. Now suppose the SEC sues Company A first. However, the court finds no violation based on the factual determinations of&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,65,46,51],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-235","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-archives","category-issue-1-print-volume-105-archives","category-notes","category-print-volume-105-archives"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=235"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4747,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235\/revisions\/4747"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}