In the United States v. Mendoza case of 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that non-mutual offensive collateral estoppel could not be used against the federal government in civil litigation. This principle prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has already been decided in another court with different parties involved. The case arose when Ignacio Mendoza, a Mexican immigrant who had previously been deported for being illegally present in the U.S., was denied naturalization by immigration authorities based on his past deportation order which he argued was unconstitutional due to racial discrimination. He sought to apply findings from a previous unrelated class-action lawsuit where it was determined that Mexican nationals were indeed targeted unfairly during deportations at that time period (1970s). However, the Supreme Court held 6-3 decision stating this doctrine does not apply against federal government because of its responsibility and commitment towards enforcing laws uniformly across all cases and individuals.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Mendoza, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's view that nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel should not be applied against the government in civil litigation. He argued that this decision undermines fairness and judicial efficiency by allowing repetitive litigation of issues which have already been resolved against the government in previous cases involving different parties. According to him, denying such application could lead to inconsistent results where a party may win a case on an issue against one private litigant but lose on the same issue against another private litigant simply because they are dealing with different opponents. Furthermore, he contended that applying nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel would encourage potential plaintiffs who might otherwise refrain from suing due to fear of losing and establishing unfavorable precedent for others similarly situated.