Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

United States v. Mendoza

Supreme Court of the United States · 1984 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureCollateral EstoppelNonmutual Offensive Collateral EstoppelRes Judicataissue preclusioncollateral estoppelnonmutual offensive estoppelgovernment litigation

Facts

Mendoza, a Filipino national who had served in the Philippine Commonwealth Army during World War II, sought naturalization in 1978 under statutory provisions that had expired decades earlier. He argued that the Government's administration of the Nationality Act denied him due process because, during part of the relevant period, the Government had halted naturalization processing in the Philippines when no authorized INS representative was stationed there. The District Court did not decide that constitutional claim on the merits because it treated the Government as collaterally estopped by In re Naturalization of 68 Filipino War Veterans, an earlier case brought by different Filipino nationals in which the Government had lost and had not pursued an appeal. The court of appeals affirmed that use of nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel.

Issue

May the United States be barred by nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel from relitigating a legal issue that was decided against it in an earlier lawsuit brought by different parties? More specifically, could Mendoza rely on the earlier 68 Filipino War Veterans decision to prevent the Government from contesting his due process claim?

Rule

Nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel does not apply against the Government so as to preclude relitigation of legal issues decided against it in prior litigation with different parties. The Government remains bound by res judicata in the same cause of action and may be estopped where mutuality is effectively present, but not in the absence of mutuality.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Seattle, Lena Ortiz sued a federal housing agency, claiming one of its regulations violated due process. Two years earlier, a different tenant in Boston had won a final district court judgment holding the same regulation unconstitutional, and the government did not appeal. Lena was not involved in that earlier case.

If Lena asks the court to bar the United States from relitigating the constitutional issue, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel may not be used against the United States by a different party in a later case. The Court emphasized the government's distinctive litigation posture, the nationwide recurrence of legal issues, and the need for legal questions to develop in multiple courts. The government's decision not to appeal the earlier loss does not let a stranger to that case offensively estop it in later litigation.