PERTTU v. RICHARDS

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

No. 23–1324

_________________

THOMAS PERTTU, PETITIONER v. KYLE BRANDON RICHARDS

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit

 Justice Barrett, with whom Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Kavanaugh join, dissenting.

 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) requires prisoners suing under 42 U. S. C. §1983 to first exhaust the administrative remedies that are “available” to them. §1997e(a). In the decision below, the Sixth Circuit held that even if prisoners are not ordinarily entitled to a jury trial to resolve this threshold question, the Seventh Amendment requires a jury when exhaustion is intertwined with the merits. I would reverse. The jury right conferred by the Seventh Amendment does not depend on the degree of factual overlap between a threshold issue and the merits of the plaintiff ’s claim.

 The Court takes a different path. Instead of resolving the constitutional question that the parties brought to us, the Court holds that the PLRA itself requires a jury trial whenever an issue is common to exhaustion and the merits. No matter, the Court says, that the PLRA is silent on the subject. No matter that this statutory argument was not briefed before us. And no matter that it was not passed on by the courts below.

 Having taken this detour, the Court ends up in the wrong place. Reading the PLRA’s silence to implicitly confer a right to a jury trial contravenes not only basic principles of statutory interpretation, but also several of this Court’s  precedents. I respectfully dissent.

I

 Kyle Richards, a state prisoner, sued Thomas Perttu, a prison employee, for damages under §1983. Richards alleged two bases for relief: First, he alleged that Perttu had sexually harassed several inmates, including Richards. And second, Richards alleged that when he had attempted to file grievances reporting the harassment, Perttu had retaliated in several ways, including by destroying Richards’s grievance forms. See ante, at 3–4. Richards claimed that Perttu’s initial harassment and subsequent retaliation violated the Eighth and First Amendments, respectively. See App. 18.

 Because a damages suit under §1983 is a “Sui[t] at common law,” all agree that the Seventh Amendment entitles Richards to a jury trial on the merits of his claims. U. S. Const., Amdt. 7 (“In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved”); see Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U. S. 687, 720–721 (1999). To litigate the merits, however, the PLRA requires Richards to establish that he exhausted “such administrative remedies as are available” to him. §1997e(a). Whether Richards did so turns on a factual dispute about the availability of his administrative remedies. According to Richards, Perttu’s destruction of Richards’s grievances rendered the prison grievance system “unavailable” for purposes of the PLRA. Ross v. Blake, 578 U. S. 632, 644 (2016). Perttu, for his part, insists that he did not destroy Richards’s grievances; thus, he says, the system was available to Richards and Richards’s failure to file grievances dooms his §1983 claims. See §1997e(a).

 This dispute about the facts engendered another about the law—and more specifically, about the role of the jury. The PLRA itself says nothing about the right to a jury trial  on the question of exhaustion. And all the circuits to have considered the question hold that the Seventh Amendment does not require one. So the consensus rule in the courts of appeals has been that PLRA exhaustion can be resolved through a bench trial.¹

 Although the Sixth Circuit has long embraced this rule, see Lee v. Willey, 789 F. 3d 673, 678 (2015), Richards argued that his case was special—and the Sixth Circuit agreed. An exception applies, it held, “when the resolution of the exhaustion issue . . . would also resolve a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the merits of the plaintiff ’s substantive case.” 96 F. 4th 911, 923 (2024). In such cases, the Sixth Circuit held, the Seventh Amendment entitles the parties to a jury. That holding broke with the decisions of the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, both of which have rejected a factual-overlap exception. See Pavey v. Conley, 544 F. 3d 739, 742 (CA7 2008); Albino v. Baca, 747 F. 3d 1162, 1171 (CA9 2014) (en banc) (agreeing with Pavey in dicta).

II

 Having granted certiorari to resolve this split, I would reverse. The jury-trial right conferred by the Seventh Amendment does not turn on the degree of factual overlap between a threshold question and the merits of the plaintiff ’s claim.

 Because the Seventh Amendment provides that the “ ‘right of trial by jury shall be preserved,’ ” it protects “ ‘the right which existed under the English common law when the Amendment was adopted.’ ” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U. S. 370, 376 (1996). In actions that  would have been tried at law at the founding, such as this one, the question is whether the “particular trial decision” at issue “must fall to the jury in order to preserve the substance of the common-law right as it existed in 1791.” Ibid.

 The parties devote much of their time to debating the best founding-era analogue to the exhaustion defense. According to Richards, exhaustion is analogous to common-law defenses that would have been raised through a plea in bar.² Under the common-law pleading system, Richards argues, the parties’ dueling pleas would isolate disputed points of law and fact, with the former allocated to a judge and the latter allocated to a jury. See H. Stephen, Principles of Pleading in Civil Actions 59–61 (1882); B. Shipman, Handbook of Common-Law Pleading §15, p. 32 (3d ed. 1923). Perttu, on the other hand, grounds exhaustion in traditional equitable practice. In his view, an exhaustion defense most closely resembles a defensive equitable action to enjoin a lawsuit—an action that would have been heard by the chancellor, not a jury. Liberty Oil Co. v. Condon Nat. Bank, 260 U. S. 235, 242–243 (1922).

 The Court does not get into this back-and-forth—and here, I agree with the Court. We did not take this case to determine whether the Seventh Amendment requires jury trials for all disputes about exhaustion. There is no circuit split on that question, and the court below did not address it. (Recall that under binding Sixth Circuit precedent, there is generally no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial for exhaustion disputes. See Lee, 789 F. 3d, at 678.) The question, moreover, might be very difficult. Neither party identifies an obvious analogue to exhaustion, a defense that developed long after the founding. See R. Berger, Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, 48 Yale L. J. 981, and n. 1  (1939). Resolving the dispute would therefore require us to confront challenging historical and methodological questions: Did the Seventh Amendment constitutionalize common-law pleading rules? Does Congress have the authority, after the merger of law and equity, to fashion novel defenses as “equitable”? What presumption applies when the historical evidence is ambiguous? It would be unwise to address these questions before the lower courts have seriously considered them.

 Answering the question presented, however, would not have required us to resolve these knotty issues. We granted certiorari to decide the same limited issue that the Sixth Circuit decided: whether a special Seventh Amendment rule applies when a factual dispute about exhaustion is intertwined with the merits. And on this question, the historical record is much clearer. Richards has presented no evidence that intertwinement with the merits was relevant to the jury-trial right. Instead, he simply repeats his broader historical argument: that factual disputes raised through pleas were heard by juries. But this was true regardless of whether the dispute overlapped with the merits. See, e.g., Wetmore v. Rymer, 169 U. S. 115, 120–123 (1898) (describing “trial[s] had with a jury” over subject-matter jurisdiction). Likewise, Perttu’s account does not implicate intertwinement. All equitable defenses were heard by “the judge as a chancellor” because they were freestanding equitable actions. Liberty Oil, 260 U. S., at 242–243; see W. Cook, Equitable Defenses, 32 Yale L. J. 645, 650–652 (1922–1923).

 The upshot is that there is no historical support for a special intertwinement rule. Mere factual overlap with the merits does not transform a collateral issue ordinarily resolved by a court into one necessarily resolved by a jury. We could have corrected that constitutional error and saved the broader, more complicated debate for another day.

 III

 Remarkably, in this Seventh Amendment case, the Court has nothing to say about the Seventh Amendment. In fact, the Court sets the Constitution entirely aside, “express[ing] no view” on how or when it demands that a jury resolve intertwined factual disputes. Ante, at 6. Left with nothing else to interpret, the Court pivots to the PLRA. True, the Court acknowledges, the PLRA says nothing about the role of the jury—and certainly nothing about the role of the jury in resolving disputes about exhaustion. But as a matter of statutory interpretation and “ ‘common-law adjudicatory principles,’ ” the Court holds that the PLRA nonetheless requires a jury trial when a dispute about exhaustion is “intertwined with the merits” of the plaintiff ’s claim. Ante, at 5–6.

 This is wrong several times over. Richards did not present this statutory theory to us or any other court; the PLRA does not confer a jury right through its silence; and the Court plucks its purported “common-law adjudicatory principle” out of thin air. I take each point in turn.

A

 To begin, the Court spins a statutory theory that Richards has never even mentioned, much less developed.³ Before us, Richards argues only that he has a constitutional right to a jury trial. Both his Brief in Opposition and his merits brief focus exclusively on the Seventh Amendment.  See Brief for Respondent 3 (“[T]he Seventh Amendment clearly protects Respondent’s right to jury resolution of disputed historical facts central to the merits of his legal claim”); Brief in Opposition 1 (“The Sixth Circuit correctly held that [the District Court’s] process violated the Seventh Amendment”). The same was true below. In the District Court, Richards’s argument turned on the proper application of circuit precedent—precedent that has everything to do with the Seventh Amendment and nothing to do with the PLRA. See Objections and Request for Review in No. 2:20–cv–00076 (WD Mich., Aug. 6, 2021), ECF Doc. 102, p. 2; Lee, 789 F. 3d, at 678. Following Richards’s lead, the District Court likewise focused on the Seventh Amendment. 2021 WL 3508384, *2 (WD Mich., Aug. 10, 2021) (“[T]he Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial [does] not extend to the exhaustion question”). On appeal in the Sixth Circuit, Richards continued to press the same Seventh Amendment argument. Brief for Appellant in No. 22–1298, p. 2; see generally Supplemental Brief for Appellant in No. 22–1289. So, no surprise, the Sixth Circuit addressed only the Seventh Amendment. See 96 F. 4th, at 923 (“[T]he Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial when the resolution of the exhaustion issue under the PLRA would also resolve a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the merits of the plaintiff ’s substantive case”).

 In light of this procedural history, the Court’s path is perplexing. We typically refuse to consider arguments that the parties failed to make before us. See Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 863, n. 30 (1997). Likewise, “we normally decline to entertain . . . arguments” that a party “failed to raise . . . in the courts below.” Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States, 579 U. S. 162, 173 (2016). And we regularly emphasize that “we are a court of review, not of first view,” so we generally do not address issues that the court of appeals did not analyze first. Cutter  v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005). (Making matters worse, it is not clear that any court has considered the statutory question the Court resolves today.) Apparently, these party-presentation principles have no purchase here. Without any prompting from the parties, the Court devises and embraces a theory that Richards himself never raised—all, ironically enough, to save his case from dismissal for an alleged failure to exhaust.

B

 Nor does the Court depart from party presentation in service of a sound result. Its analysis goes wrong at every turn, beginning with its choice to venture beyond statutory text into the realm of statutory silence.

 As the Court recognizes, the PLRA is “ ‘silent on the issue’ whether judges or juries should resolve factual disputes related to exhaustion.” Ante, at 7. Indeed, a search of the exhaustion provision yields nothing remotely related to a jury trial:

“No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U. S. C. §1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” §1997e(a).

Notwithstanding this silence, the Court says that the PLRA guarantees the plaintiff “a right to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that falls under the Seventh Amendment.” Ante, at 6. According to the Court, this “intertwinement” rule is so well established that Congress expected courts to apply it even when the statute says nothing about it. Ibid. Supposedly, the rule is a “ ‘common-law adjudicatory principl[e]’ ” against which Congress legislates. Ibid.

 It is true that Congress sometimes legislates against the  backdrop of a well-established principle. For example, relying on the “strength of the traditional rule” that criminal offenses require mens rea, we interpret statutes to incorporate that requirement “ ‘even where the statutory definition did not in terms include it.’ ” Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600, 605–606 (1994) (quoting United States v. Balint, 258 U. S. 250, 251–252 (1922)). Section 1997e(a), however, implicates no such “traditional rule.” (Note that while the Court treats the “intertwinement” rule as bedrock, it is apparently not confident enough in the rule’s historical roots to call it constitutionally required.) Even beyond that, however, the Court does not cite precedent applying this supposed rule—or anything like it—as a background principle of statutory interpretation. And so far as I can tell, there is no such precedent. On the contrary, when we have considered whether a statute confers the right to a jury trial, we have understood silence to mean what you would expect—that Congress did not affirmatively confer such a right.

 Consider Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412 (1987). There, we considered whether a civil action under the Clean Water Act required the jury’s involvement. We asked the same question that the Court asks today: Was a “ ‘construction of the statute . . . fairly possible by which the [Seventh Amendment] question may be avoided’ ”? Id., at 417, n. 3. No, we said: “Nothing in the language of the Clean Water Act or its legislative history implies any congressional intent to grant defendants the right to a jury trial.” Ibid. “Given this statutory silence,” there was no statutory basis for a jury-trial right. Ibid. (emphasis added). That was so even though the traditional role of the jury in this context meant that the Seventh Amendment required one. Id., at 418–419.

 Our decision in Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., is similar. 523 U. S. 340 (1998). Faced with the question whether a copyright owner was entitled to a jury trial  in a suit for damages, we observed that the statute was “silent on the point.” Id., at 342. The “entire statutory provision” made “no mention of a right to a jury trial or, for that matter, to juries at all.” Id., at 346. As in Tull, that silence was dispositive: We “discern[ed] no statutory right to a jury trial.” 523 U. S., at 347. And again, that was so even though the Seventh Amendment demanded a jury. Id., at 348–355.

 Finally, in Monterey, we held that §1983 “does not itself confer the jury right.” 526 U. S., at 707. This was true, we explained, even though §1983 authorizes a party to proceed through an “ ‘action at law.’ ” Ibid. We declined to interpret the phrase as a “term of art implying a right to a jury trial,” and, as a result, we declined “to find a statutory jury right under §1983.” Id., at 707–708.

 This should have been an easier case than Tull, Feltner, or Monterey. In each of those cases, the statute invoked terms traditionally associated with the jury-trial right. See Monterey, 526 U. S., at 707 (“ ‘action[s] at law’ ”); Feltner, 523 U. S., at 352–353 (“statutory damages”); Tull, 481 U. S., at 422 (“civil penalty”). Indeed, in all three cases, we ultimately held that the Seventh Amendment required a jury trial. Monterey, 526 U. S., at 720–721; Feltner, 523 U. S., at 355; Tull, 481 U. S., at 427. It would have been easy to read into a phrase such as “action at law” an implicit instruction to require jury trials, but we did not do so; instead, we read the statute to mean what it actually said. Monterey, 526 U. S., at 708. Here, the statute contains no term traditionally associated with the jury-trial right, and the claim to a statutory backdrop is even weaker. That is perhaps why Richards never attempted to make the statutory argument that the Court advances now.

C

 The Court’s approach to statutory interpretation is not only adventuresome—it also rests on an illusion. Neither  history, nor logic, nor precedent supports its “intertwinement” rule.

 I covered the lack of historical support for the rule in my discussion of the Seventh Amendment. On, then, to logic: The Court’s proposed rule is both manifestly unfair and inherently arbitrary. Under the Court’s approach, similarly situated plaintiffs are entitled to a jury (or not) based on immaterial distinctions in the claims they choose to bring. To see why, imagine that another inmate (say, Smith) sues Perttu based on the very same facts that Richards alleges here. Like Richards, Smith claims that Perttu sexually harassed him. And, like Richards, Smith contends that Perttu destroyed his grievances, thus excusing his failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies. But suppose that, unlike Richards, Smith brings only an Eighth Amendment claim. Because the destruction of grievance forms does not implicate the Eighth Amendment, Richards’s proposed rule would not entitle Smith to a jury trial on exhaustion.

 As this example illustrates, the Court’s rule makes little sense. There is no question that both Richards and Smith would be entitled to a jury trial on the merits of their §1983 claims. For both Richards and Smith, an adverse ruling on administrative exhaustion would require dismissal. For both Richards and Smith, the exhaustion question would depend on the same set of facts and credibility determinations. And for both Richards and Smith, an exhaustion-related dismissal would not preclude a subsequent suit once they have adequately exhausted their claims. So why should Richards get a jury trial, but not Smith? The Court does not say.

 Instead, the Court relies on three cases holding (it says) that an issue triggers the jury-trial right if it is intertwined with the merits, even if it could ordinarily be resolved by the court. None of the cited cases stands for this proposition.

 1

 The Court leads with Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U. S. 500 (1959). See ante, at 8–10. In that case, the District Court had two actions before it: (1) an equitable action by the plaintiff (Fox Theatres); and (2) a countersuit by the defendant (Beacon Theatres) for damages. See 359 U. S., at 502–503. Both actions involved a common issue related to the reasonableness of the plaintiff ’s underlying contracts. But only the latter action—a suit at law—implicated the right to a jury trial. That teed up the question: Which should the trial court resolve first?

 The answer, we held, is that courts ultimately have “discretion in deciding whether the legal or equitable cause should be tried first.” Id., at 510. But this discretion should, “wherever possible, be exercised” such that the legal claims would be heard before the equitable ones. Ibid. Resolving the equitable claim first, we explained, might inadvertently “ ‘operate either by way of res judicata or collateral estoppel’ ” so as to limit the “ ‘opportunity fully to try to a jury every issue which has a bearing upon’ ” the legal claim. Id., at 504 (quoting Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 252 F. 2d 864, 874 (CA9 1958)).

 Beacon Theatres does not hold, however, that the Seventh Amendment compels legal-then-equitable sequencing. Nor does it “construc[t]” statutory silence to require such a rule. Ante, at 5. Instead, as our later cases confirm, Beacon Theatres “enunciate[s] no more than a general prudential rule” governing the trial court’s “discretion in determining the sequence of trial” when legal and equitable claims are joined in the same action. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U. S. 322, 334 (1979). As a rule of discretion, it is not hard and fast: We have observed that “there might be situations” in which a court may “resolve the equitable claim first even though the results might be dispositive of the issues involved in the legal claim.” Katchen v. Landy, 382 U. S. 323, 339–340 (1966). Congress, too, has flexibility: It may devise  “a specific statutory scheme” that contemplates “the prompt trial of a disputed claim without the intervention of a jury.” Id., at 339.

 With that understanding of Beacon Theatres in mind, the differences with this case are hard to miss. Beacon Theatres involved a court’s discretion in judicial administration—discretion that Congress is always free to override. See Katchen, 382 U. S., at 339–340 (emphasizing that the Beacon Theatres rule can be displaced “[t]o implement congressional intent”). The Court’s analysis here, by contrast, turns on whether Congress affirmatively conferred a jury-trial right on prisoners when it enacted the PLRA.

 Besides, the problem that drove the Court’s decision in Beacon Theatres is absent here. Recall the concern: that Fox’s equitable claim would proceed to final judgment before Beacon Theatres’s legal claim and thus preclusively resolve “the issues involved” in that claim. Katchen, 382 U. S., at 339–340. Indeed, as we later explained in Parklane Hosiery, “[r]ecognition that an equitable determination could have collateral-estoppel effect in a subsequent legal action was the major premise” of Beacon Theatres. 439 U. S., at 333 (emphasis added). The holding of Beacon Theatres, we underscored, was specifically intended to avoid foreclosing, “by res judicata or collateral estoppel,” the “relitigation” of an “issue common to both legal and equitable claims.” 439 U. S., at 334.

 No such concern is present in this case. Both courts to have considered the issue have concluded, consistent with principles of collateral estoppel, that the resolution of facts relating to administrative exhaustion does not bind the jury in a subsequent trial. See Pavey, 544 F. 3d, at 742; Albino, 747 F. 3d, at 1171. This makes sense: Because collateral estoppel requires a “final judgment,” it should have no force when the resolution of a threshold issue (like exhaustion)  results in a without-prejudice dismissal. Restatement (Second) of Judgments §27 (1980).⁴

 For reasons I do not understand, the Court recasts Beacon Theatres as having little to do with collateral estoppel. Without any hesitation, it turns Beacon Theatres’s “major premise” into a minor corollary, announcing that the case will not be “artificially” limited “to cases involving estoppel.” Ante, at 14. But the reasoning of Beacon Theatres expressly turned on estoppel, and we have subsequently identified this principle as the animating force behind its holding. Parklane Hosiery, 439 U. S., at 333; Katchen, 382 U. S., at 339–340. And estoppel is the one circumstance where intertwinement with the merits has practical relevance to the jury-trial right. Without fanfare, citation, or  explanation, the Court thus transforms our 40-year understanding of a seminal case on equity.

2

 The Court’s reliance on Smithers v. Smith and Land v. Dollar is even more of a stretch: Neither has anything to do with the question presented here.

 Start with Smithers, in which the plaintiff asserted that the defendants had stolen his land. 204 U. S. 632, 640 (1907). The land, the plaintiff claimed, was worth more than $2,000, the amount-in-controversy requirement then in effect. See id., at 639–641. After holding a bench trial, the District Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction; according to the court, each defendant had taken a parcel worth less than $2,000, and the defendants had not acted jointly. Id., at 641–642. In so holding, the court violated the black-letter rule that a plaintiff ’s declaration generally establishes the amount in controversy. Id., at 642. Because it was “legally possible for the plaintiff to recover the full amount of all the land and the full amount of the damages claimed,” we held that the District Court had erred in dismissing the case. Id., at 644.

 In other words, the District Court simply misapplied longstanding jurisdictional principles. The plaintiff ’s pleadings were sufficient to establish jurisdiction, notwithstanding any factual disputes that might limit the plaintiff ’s potential recovery down the line. But these disputes implicated the merits—damages, in particular—not jurisdiction. Smithers’s rule is therefore unremarkable. A trial court may not prematurely resolve a merits question by framing it as a jurisdictional question, thereby depriving the plaintiff of a jury. Smithers says nothing about whether a threshold question requires a jury simply because of factual overlap with the merits.

 Land v. Dollar, 330 U. S. 731 (1947), is even further  afield. There, stockholders sued members of the U. S. Maritime Commission to recover stock previously delivered to the Commission. Id., at 733–734. The District Court dismissed the case, reasoning that because the stock was federal property, sovereign immunity barred the plaintiff ’s suit. Id., at 734–735. That was an error, we held: Ownership of the stock implicated the merits of the stockholders’ claim, so the court should not have decided that issue at the outset of the case. Id., at 739.

 Nothing in Land turned on the Seventh Amendment; indeed, the word “jury” does not appear in our opinion or the opinion of the court below. See Dollar v. Land, 154 F. 2d 307 (CADC 1946). This may be because Land was a suit for injunctive relief and mandamus, not damages. See 330 U. S., at 740 (Reed, J., concurring); Dollar, 154 F. 2d, at 308 (“The complaint prayed for relief by way of injunction and mandamus against the defendant”). In fact, in the end “a lengthy trial was had before the court without a jury.” Dollar v. Land, 184 F. 2d 245, 247 (CADC 1950). Sensibly, then, we have never understood Land to inform the scope of the right to a jury trial. It stands for the more limited proposition that when there is “an identity between the ‘jurisdictional’ issues and certain issues on the merits,” there is “no objection to reserving the jurisdictional issues until a hearing on the merits.” Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U. S. 186, 203, n. 19 (1974). This rule is just a principle of judicial administration—addressing circumstances in which it makes sense to defer ruling on a potentially jurisdictional issue until the merits—and not a holding on the jury-trial right.

*  *  *

 The Court reads the PLRA to say what it does not. It does so for reasons that the parties did not brief; that have no basis in our doctrine; and that are contrary to well-established principles of statutory interpretation. In so doing, the  Court creates a regime under which an exhaustion requirement designed to “reduce the quantity and improve the quality of prisoner suits” just generates more litigation of its own. Porter v. Nussle, 534 U. S. 516, 524 (2002). Now, any prisoner can potentially obtain full jury review of the very threshold question that was designed to streamline prisoner litigation. All he has to do is find a way to transform his inability to use the prison system into a claim for relief. Congress did not devise such a rule, and we have never adopted one. I respectfully dissent.