Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/360

 546US1

Unit: $U13

[08-22-08 15:36:16] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 546 U. S. 142 (2005)

149

Scalia, J., concurring

APA are “not lightly to be presumed” in light of its express­ reference requirement, Marcello, supra, at 310; see also Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 349 U. S. 48, 51 (1955). That as­ sertion may add little or nothing to our already-powerful presumption against implied repeals. “We have repeatedly stated. . . that absent a clearly established congressional intention, repeals by implica­ tion are not favored. An implied repeal will only be found where provisions in two statutes are in irreconcil­ able conﬂict, or where the latter Act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a substitute.” Branch v. Smith, 538 U. S. 254, 273 (2003) (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks and cita­ tions omitted). See also Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 551 (1974). When the plain import of a later statute directly conﬂicts with an earlier statute, the later enactment governs, regard­ less of its compliance with any earlier-enacted requirement of an express reference or other “magical password.” For the reasons set forth in the majority opinion, in the Higher Education Technical Amendments and the Debt Col­ lection Improvement Act, Congress unambiguously au­ thorized, without exception, the collection of 10-year-old student-loan debt by administrative offset of Government payments. In doing so, it ﬂatly contradicted, and thereby effectively repealed, part of § 207(a) of the Social Security Act. This repeal is effective, regardless of whether the express-reference requirement of § 207(b) is fulﬁlled. Despite our jurisprudence on this subject, it is regrettably not uncommon for Congress to attempt to burden the future exercise of legislative power with express-reference and express-statement requirements. See, e. g., 1 U. S. C. § 109; 5 U. S. C. § 559; 25 U. S. C. § 1735(b); 42 U. S. C. § 2000bb–3(b); 50 U. S. C. §§ 1547(a)(1), 1621(b). In the present case, it might seem more respectful of Congress to refrain from de­