148 STEVENS, J., dissenting difference between the importance of the policies underlying the two statutes. But there is no necessary conflict. Since the two Acts can be harmonized by a fair and liberal construction, if we heed Sedgwick's counsel, that "must be done." As already noted, the actual wording of the earlier statute, which used the words "may be had" provides no conflict with a literal reading of the later Act. The conflict is created solely by this Court's interpretation of those words as, in effect, meaning that the trial of a case against a national bank "must be had" in the place specified by Congress rather than the place specified by a state legislature. If we so read the statute, we need only conclude that any later enacted special venue statute which, by its own terms, applies to national banks should be read to mean what it says. Preoccupation with the ancient doctrine of implied repeal should not foreclose this simple construction of the plain language of the 1934 Act.10 10 Although the Second Circuit decision in Bruns, Nordeman & Co. v. American Nat. Bank, 394 F. 2d 300, 303 (1968), supports the result reached by the Court in this case, Judge Friendly expressed the opinion that if the court were writing on a clean slate, it would have reached a contrary conclusion; it reached the result it did only because it felt bound by a prior decision of the Second Circuit which it characterized as giving "a construction to the clause of § 94 dealing with the venue of suits in a federal court quite as Draconian as the Supreme Court has done with respect to the state court clause." The earlier Second Circuit precedent made no analysis of the question whether the clause should be given a mandatory or permissive construction. See Leonardi v. Chase Nat. Bank, 81 F. 2d 19 (1936). It is also noteworthy that when the Third Circuit considered the question, it concluded that the venue provision of the Securities Exchange Act should be accepted at face value. See Ronson Corp. v. Liquifin Aktiengesellschaft, 483 F. 2d 852 (1973); contra: United States Nat. Bank v. Hill, 434 F. 2d 1019 (CA9 1970). The American Law Institute, 209-904 O-78-14 STEVENS, J., dissenting 426 U.S. The rule that repeals by implication are not favored, like all other canons of statutory construction, is merely one of the guidelines to observe in the search for a construction which will best reflect the real intent of the legislature. When we are dealing with a well-established and clearly defined old rule, it is usually reasonable to suppose that the legislative intent to change such a rule would be unambiguously expressed. Or if we are dealing with an old rule that is an established and important part of our national policy, we must be sure that it is not changed simply by inadvertent use of broad statutory language. Thus, if Congress intended to modify the long-settled practice of preferential hiring of Indians on Indian reservations," or to limit the coverage of a statute as important as the Sherman Act,12 a court would require an unambiguous expression of intent to make such a change; without such an expression it is reasonable to believe that inadvertence, rather than an intent to repeal, is the actual explanation for the broad language that arguably changes the old rule.13 But if neither the 12 Study of the Division of Jurisdiction between State and Federal Courts 413 (1969), pointed out that there "is no obvious reason why a national bank requires a unique and restrictive venue rule, and cannot be treated as is any other corporation for purposes of venue." 11 The policy of according hiring preference to Indians in the Bureau of Indian Affairs which was involved in Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 550-551, was not only perfectly clear but had been consistently recognized since at least as far back as 1934. 12 See, e. g., United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 198; United States v. Philadelphia Nat. Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 350-351; Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U. S. 341, 359; United States v. National Assn. of Securities Dealers, 422 U. S. 694, 719–720. 13 When Congress intends to change a well-recognized and wellestablished rule of law, it customarily provides us with evidence of that specific intent. But it is unrealistic to expect the Legislature to consider and expressly mention the impact of a new statute on every old rule that it may modify, particularly if the old rule is not 148 STEVENS, J., dissenting existence of, nor the reason for, the old rule is clear at the time of the later enactment, there is no special reason for questioning the legislative intent to have the later statute mean exactly what it says. Specifically, in this case, since it is clear that Congress intended national banks to be covered by some sections of the Securities Exchange Act, but not others,1 and since the purpose of authorizing a broader venue in this type of litigation applies with equal force to national banks and other defendants, the canon of construction strikes me as an unreliable guide for ascertaining the true intent of Congress. Congress may well have simply overlooked the special venue provision in the Civil War statute, particularly since Langdeau had not yet been decided. It may therefore be accurate to describe the omission of any reference to the earlier statute in the legislative history of the later one as inadvertent. But that merely raises the question of whether it is more realistic to imply an exception to the applicable language of the 1934 Act or to conclude that if Congress had thought about this preference for national banks it nevertheless would have enacted the statute it did enact in 1934. There is no doubt in my mind that the 1934 Congress would have done exactly what it did do even if it had foreseen not only unimportant but not even clearly stated at the time the new statute is enacted. In such a setting the new statute should be interpreted in the light of its own history with the expectation that a certain amount of ancient underbrush will inevitably be cut away. Only to the extent that the old roots retain sufficient vitality to support some desirable and discernible purpose at the time of the later enactment is there any real justification for avoiding an implied repeal. 14 The Securities Act of 1933 contains explicit exemptions for national banks at 15 U. S. C. §§ 77c (a) (2), 771 (2), as does the Securities Exchange Act at 15 U. S. C. § 78l (i). STEVENS, J., dissenting 426 U.S. only this Court's decision in Langdeau but also the Court's willingness to construe the federal venue provision in the same "Draconian" fashion as the state provision, to use Judge Friendly's typically appropriate adjective. I could understand a legislative decision to exempt banks entirely from the coverage of the new law on the theory that an interest in the solvency of national banks entitles them to special immunity, but it seems wholly unrealistic to assume that Congress would treat banks like all other defendants for liability purposes and yet treat them differently for venue purposes. It is true that we are dealing with only a tiny fraction of the litigation arising under the 1934 Act or of the litigation involving national banks. But that fact merely minimizes the likelihood that a busy Congress will correct an inequitable and anachronistic situation. It is also true that holding the trial in one forum rather than another is hardly an insurmountable burden on either the plaintiff or the bank in this day of easy and rapid transportation-unlike the situation in the Civil War period when the statute that the Court considers controlling was enacted-but the burden on the judiciary is increased by requiring multiple trials whenever national banks participate in an allegedly unlawful securities offering. In sum, whatever canon of statutory construction is applied, I am persuaded that we are most apt to reflect the intent of Congress faithfully if we give effect to the plain meaning of the 1934 Act and thereby place banks on an equal footing with other corporations which must defend litigation of this kind. I therefore respectfully dissent. Syllabus HANCOCK, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KENTUCKY v. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 74-220. Argued January 13, 1976-Decided June 7, 1976 Although § 118 of the Clean Air Act obligates federal installations discharging air pollutants to join with nonfederal facilities in complying with state "requirements respecting control and abatement of air pollution," obtaining a permit from a State with a federally approved implementation plan is not among such requirements. There cannot be found in § 118, either on its face or in relation to the Act as a whole, nor can there be derived from the legislative history of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, any clear and unambiguous declaration by Congress that such federal installations may not operate without a state permit. Nor can congressional intention to submit federal activity to state control be implied from the claim that under the State's federally approved plan it is only through the permit system that compliance schedules and other requirements may be administratively enforced against federal installations. Pp. 178-199. 497 F. 2d 1172, affirmed. WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which BURGER, C. J., and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. STEWART and REHNQUIST, JJ., filed a dissenting statement, post, p. 199. David D. Beals, Assistant Attorney General of Kentucky, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Ed W. Hancock, Attorney General, pro se, and David C. Short, Assistant Attorney General. Deputy Solicitor General Friedman argued the cause for respondents. On the brief were Solicitor General Bork, Assistant Attorney General Johnson, Deputy Solic |