Wisniewski v. Rodale, Inc.

OPINION OF THE COURT

This appeal requires us to determine whether § 3009 of the Postal Reorganization Act, 39 U.S.C. § 3009 (2000), which regulates the shipment of unordered merchandise, provides an implied private right of action. The District Court dismissed David Wisniewski’s § 3009 claim on the ground that no implied private right of action exists under this statute. Based on our review of the statute and applicable Supreme Court jurisprudence, we will affirm.

I.

This litigation began in February 2003 when then-plaintiff Michael Karnuth sued Rodale, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that Rodale violated the Postal Reorganization Act’s unordered merchandise statute, 39 U.S.C. § 3009,1 and various Pennsylvania state laws. Specifically, Karnuth alleged that Rodale sent him books that he had never ordered and demanded payment for them, and that he *296paid Rodale for one of the books to avoid damage to his credit rating. Karnuth moved to certify the case as a class action on behalf of all those to whom Rodale had sent unsolicited products and payment demands, with a subclass consisting of those who had paid in whole or in part for the unsolicited products. The court denied the motion without prejudice after Rodale alleged that Karnuth had consented to receive the books. See Karnuth v. Rodale, Inc., No. 03-00742, 2003 WL 21961399 (E.D.Pa. July 2, 2003). After Karnuth filed an amended complaint, the District Court again denied his motion for class certification in March 2005 on the ground that inconsistencies in Karnuth’s two complaints could damage his credibility and thereby harm the other class members. See Karnuth v. Rodale, Inc., No. 03-00742, 2005 WL 747251 (E.D.Pa. Mar.30, 2005).

Subsequently, David Wisniewski replaced Karnuth as class representative. Like Karnuth, Wisniewski alleged that Ro-dale had sent him unsolicited books and that he had paid Rodale to avoid damage to his credit rating. Rodale argued that Wisniewski consented when he sent Ro-dale an order card that enrolled Wisniew-ski in a “negative option” plan, under which Rodale would ship books and bill any recipients who did not return the books within a specified time period. Wis-niewski responded that the order cards failed to meet objective disclosure standards and thus were inadequate as a source of consent. Without addressing the merits of these claims, the District Court granted class certification in July 2005 with respect to the § 3009 claim and denied certification with respect to the state law claims. See Karnuth v. Rodale, Inc., No. 03-00742, 2005 WL 1683605 (E.D.Pa. July 18, 2005). Both parties moved for summary judgment on the federal and state claims, agreeing that any ruling would bind only the named parties and not the class. See Wisniewski v. Rodale, 406 F.Supp.2d 550, 553 (E.D.Pa.2005). In December 2005, the District Court dismissed the § 3009 claim on the ground that this provision does not confer an implied private right of action, and it dismissed the state law claims for lack of jurisdiction. Id. at 557-58. Wisniewski timely appealed.

On appeal, the only issue before us is whether an implied private right of action exists under § 3009.2 Because this is a question of law, we exercise plenary review over the District Court’s summary judgment order. Am. Trucking v. Del. Toll Bridge Comm’n, 458 F.3d 291, 295 (3d Cir.2006).

II.

A private right of action3 is the right of an individual to bring suit to remedy or prevent an injury that results from another party’s actual or threatened violation of a legal requirement.4 Although the legal *297requirement can be established by a number of sources, our focus is on statutory duties created by acts of Congress. Many federal statutes provide a private right of action through their express terms.5 Other federal statutes, however, merely define rights and duties, and are silent about whether an individual may bring suit to enforce them. For some statutes in this latter category, courts have held that “implied” private rights of action exist. Since neither party in the present case contends that the text of § 3009 provides an express private right of action, the only question before us is whether the statute confers an implied private right of action.

No consensus exists regarding when the Supreme Court first began recognizing implied private rights of action under federal statutes. In Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the majority contends that the Court’s “earliest” case recognizing an implied private right of action was Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33, 36 S.Ct. 482, 60 L.Ed. 874 (1916). See Cannon, 441 U.S. at 689, 99 S.Ct. 1946 (citing Rigsby, 241 U.S. at 39, 36 S.Ct. 482).6 In Rigsby, the Court unanimously held that the Federal Safety Appliance acts provided an implied private right of action to an injured railroad employee against his employer. 241 U.S. at 39, 36 S.Ct. 482. Others argue that the idea of an implied private right of action existed in English common law7 and appeared in early U.S. cases such as Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803).8

At all events, over the past fifty years, the Supreme Court has substantially modified its test for determining whether a federal statute provides an implied private right of action. The Court’s opinions have not always announced explicitly when they are overruling (or limiting to their facts) old precedents in this area. Therefore, it can be difficult to discern to what degree the Court has repudiated old tests as opposed to applying them in a different way to different statutes. We trace these changes below, explaining how the implied private right of action test has developed and where we believe it stands today.

*298A. J.I. Case Co. v. Borak

We begin our review with J.I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426, 84 S.Ct. 1555, 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1964), because this case exemplifies the Court’s older and less restrictive approach to implied private rights of action. In Borak, the Court unanimously held that the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 implicitly authorizes a private right of action for rescission or damages to stockholders who alleged that they were injured by a consummated merger authorized with a false or misleading proxy statement in violation of § 14(a) of the Act. See 377 U.S. at 428, 435, 84 S.Ct. 1555. The Court explained its holding by emphasizing that “it is the duty of the courts to be alert to provide such remedies as are necessary to make effective the congressional purpose.” Id. at 433, 84 S.Ct. 1555. Based on language in § 14(a) explicitly granting the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) the authority to make rules “in the public interest or for the protection of investors,” the Court deemed “the protection of investors” to be among the section’s primary purposes. Id. at 432, 84 S.Ct. 1555. Noting that the SEC admits that it does not have enough time to examine every proxy statement for false and misleading statements, the Court stated that private enforcement is a “necessary supplement” to the SEC’s efforts to protect investors. Id. at 432-33, 84 S.Ct. 1555. Finally, the Court asserted that a federal right of action was necessary because state law might not be adequate to protect the federally-created “rights” in the statute. Id. at 434-35, 84 S.Ct. 1555. At no point in its opinion did the Borak Court purport to discern Congress’s intent regarding a private right of action (as opposed to Congress’s general purposes in enacting the statute).

B. Cort v. Ash

The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975), replaced the relatively loose standards of Borak with a four-factor test for determining whether an implied private right of action exists.9 Using this test, the Court determined that 18 U.S.C. § 610 (1970 & Supp. III), a criminal statute (later repealed) that prohibited corporations from making contributions to presidential campaigns, does not provide an implied private right of action for stockholders to sue corporate directors who violate the statute. 422 U.S. at 68-70, 95 S.Ct. 2080. The Court described its test as follows: *299Id. at 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). Explaining the second prong of this test, the Court said that when federal law grants certain rights to a class of people (and thereby satisfies the first prong), “it is not necessary to show an intention to create a private cause of action, although an explicit purpose to deny such cause of action would be controlling.” Id. at 82, 95 S.Ct. 2080 (emphasis in original). Thus, the test articulated in Cort allowed courts to recognize an implied private right of action even in the absence of any affirmative congressional intent to create this remedy.

*298In determining whether a private remedy is implicit in a statute not expressly providing one, several factors are relevant. First, is the plaintiff “one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted” — that is, does the statute create a federal right in favor of the plaintiff? Second, is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one? Third, is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff? And finally, is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law, in an area basically the concern of the States, so that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law?

*299C. Post-Cort Developments

Although Cort has never been formally overruled, subsequent decisions have altered it virtually beyond recognition.10 In Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the Court framed the implied private right of action question as one of “statutory construction” in which the Court’s task is to determine whether “Congress intended to make a remedy available.” 441 U.S. at 688, 99 S.Ct. 1946. The Cannon Court nonetheless relied on the four Cort factors because they were “indicative of such intent.” 11 Id. Thus, Congress’s intent to create a private right of action — virtually ignored in Borak and described in Cort v. Ash merely as one of four factors— emerged as the primary factor in Cannon. The Court in Touche Ross & Co. v. Red-ington, 442 U.S. 560, 99 S.Ct. 2479, 61 L.Ed.2d 82 (1979), established that congressional intent is the exclusive factor, declaring that the task of courts is “limited solely to whether Congress intended to create the private right of action,” 442 U.S. at 568, 99 S.Ct. 2479 (emphasis added), and instructing that courts should use the Cort factors only to the extent that they help to determine legislative intent, id. at 575-76, 99 S.Ct. 2479. See also Transamerica Mortg. Advisors, Inc. (TAMA) v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 15-16, 100 S.Ct. 242, 62 L.Ed.2d 146 (1979) (“what must ultimately be determined is whether Congress intended to create the private remedy asserted, as our recent decisions have made clear.”). Although the Supreme Court continued to recite the Cort factors in later implied private right of action opinions, its attempts to discern legislative intent went well beyond these factors. As the Court’s opinion in Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 108 S.Ct. 513, 98 L.Ed.2d 512 (1988), observed, the Court has used “other tools of statutory construction” in addition to the Cort factors as “guides to discerning” Congress’s intent. 484 U.S. at 179, 108 S.Ct. 513.

D. Alexander v. Sandoval

The Supreme Court’s decision in Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001), strongly suggests that the Court has abandoned the *300Cort v. Ash test.12 In Sandoval, the Court held that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act does not provide an implied private right of action to enforce disparate-impact regulations promulgated under § 602 of the Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000d-l (2000)).13 Although the Sandoval Court did not expressly reject the Cort v. Ash factors, it did not use them at all to guide its inquiry.14 Instead, the Court set out the following test for discerning whether an implied private right of action exists:

Like substantive federal law itself, private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress.... The judicial task is to interpret the statute Congress has passed to determine whether it displays an intent to create not just a private right but also a private remedy.... Statutory intent on this latter point is determinative.... Without it, a cause of action does not exist and courts may not create one, no matter how desirable that might be as a policy matter, or how compatible with the statute.

532 U.S. at 286-87, 121 S.Ct. 1511 (citations omitted). The Court concluded that the “text and structure” of § 602 did not show that Congress intended to create a personal right,15 in light of the absence of “rights-creating language” that focuses on the protected individuals. 532 U.S. at 288-89, 121 S.Ct. 1511. Next, the Court concluded that nothing in the text of § 602 demonstrated that Congress intended to create a private remedy and that the statute’s provision of a remedial scheme suggests that Congress “intended to preclude” any other remedy. Id. at 290-91, 121 S.Ct. 1511. The Court rejected the Government’s argument that Congress had *301“ratified” an implied private right of action under § 602 by failing to address this issue when it amended Title VI.16 Having applied what the Court called its “standard test for discerning private causes of action” and having found no congressional intent to create a personal right or private remedy in the statute’s text or structure, the Court ended its inquiry. Id. at 293, 121 S.Ct. 1511.

E. The State of the Law Today

After Sandoval, the relevant inquiry for determining whether a private right of action exists appears to have two steps: (1) Did Congress intend to create a personal right?; and (2) Did Congress intend to create a private remedy? Only if the answer to both of these questions is “yes” may a court hold that an implied private right of action exists under a federal statute. See, e.g., Three Rivers Ctr. v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Pittsburgh, 382 F.3d 412, 421 (3d Cir.2004) (“Put succinctly, for an implied right of action to exist, a statute must manifest Congress’s intent to create (1) a personal right, and (2) a private remedy” (citing Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 286, 121 S.Ct. 1511)). Even when we invoked the Cort test in American Trucking v. Delaware Toll Bridge Commission, 458 F.3d 291 (3d Cir.2006), our analysis paralleled the Sandoval test. Focusing only on the first two “critical” Cort factors, 458 F.3d at 297, the American Trucking opinion treated the first Cort factor as an inquiry into legislative intent to create a personal right, 458 F.3d at 297, and the second Cort factor as an inquiry into legislative intent to create a private remedy, 458 F.3d at 303.17

III.

Applying the Sandoval test to § 3009, we conclude that this statute provides no implied private right of action.

A. Did Congress Intend to Provide a Personal Right in § 3009?

To determine whether a personal right existed under § 602 of Title VI, the Sandoval Court began by reviewing the “text and structure” of the statute to determine whether the statute contained “rights-cre*302ating” language that focuses on the “individual protected” rather than “the person regulated.” 532 U.S. at 288-89, 121 S.Ct. 1511.18 Accordingly, we examine the text and structure of § 3009 to see if rights-creating language exists. The only part of the statute that explicitly establishes a “right” is § 3009(b):

Any merchandise mailed in violation of subsection (a) of this section, or within the exceptions contained therein, may be treated as a gift by the recipient, who shall have the right to retain, use, discard, or dispose of it in any manner he sees fit without any obligation whatsoever to the sender.

39 U.S.C. § 3009(b) (emphasis added). With an explicit reference to a right and a focus on the individual protected, this language suffices to demonstrate Congress’s intent to create a personal right for recipients to treat unsolicited merchandise as a gift. Indeed, Rodale concedes that § 3009(b)’s language is “rights-creating.” (See Appellee’s Br. at 30.)

“Rights-creating” language is not as obviously present in other sections of the statute. Section 3009(b) requires that mailers of unsolicited merchandise attach a “clear and conspicuous statement” informing the recipient of his or her right to treat the merchandise as a gift. Section 3009(c) forbids mailers of unsolicited merchandise from sending a recipient a bill or any dunning communications. These provisions do not necessarily create “personal rights” for recipients to receive clear and conspicuous statements and to be free from bills and dunning communications. Congress worded them as prohibitions on the person regulated rather than entitlements for the person protected.19 The provisions’ failure to identify “rights” (to receive notices and not to receive bills) contrasts with the explicit identification of a “right” to keep the merchandise as a gift.20 Even assuming arguendo that Congress intended these provisions to create personal rights, the distinction is largely academic because we can find no legislative intent to create a private remedy, for the reasons discussed below.

*303 B. Did Congress Intend to Provide a Private Remedy for Violations of § 3009?

In the generation since the Supreme Court declared that legislative intent to create an implied private right of action is the sole touchstone of our inquiry, the Court has not provided a test for discerning this intent. Most of its decisions have relied on whatever indicators of legislative intent appear to be useful in the context of a given statute. The Court frequently has examined factors related to the text and structure of the statute in question, including the existence of a comprehensive remedial scheme in the statute21 and the explicit creation of a private right of action elsewhere in the same statute.22 The Court has also relied upon various aspects of the statute’s legislative history,23 the “customary legal incidents” that follow directly from a statutory provision,24 Congress’s explicit creation of private rights of action in similar statutes enacted at roughly the same time,25 and an assortment of *304other factors.26 To provide some boundaries to our inquiry into congressional intent, we will confíne ourselves to those purported signals of legislative intent that the parties have raised and that are consistent with current doctrine.

1. Text and Structure of § 3009

The express language of § 3009 provides only for Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) enforcement. By declaring the shipipent of unsolicited merchandise and the resulting bills to be a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1) (and therefore unlawful), § 3009(a) authorizes the FTC to use any of the Federal Trade Commission Act’s (“FTC Act”) applicable enforcement mechanisms in response to this behavior.27 The FTC Act allows the FTC to obtain a variety of remedies28 for violations of § 45(a)(1), including injunctions29 and civil penalties.30 The rest of § 3009 builds on § 3009(a) by explaining what rights a recipient possesses when confronted with an unlawful merchandise shipment and by imposing additional duties on shippers of merchandise who have either chosen to disregard § 3009(a) or are subject to one of its exceptions.

The reference to FTC enforcement combined with the absence of other enforcement provisions creates a presumption that FTC enforcement of the statute is exclusive. As the Sandoval Court held, “[t]he express provision of one method of *305enforcing a substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others.” 532 U.S. at 290, 121 S.Ct. 1511. Wisniew-ski correctly points out that “private rights of action have been implied from statutes that provide for agency enforcement” (Appellant’s Br. at 23), but this does not change the fact that agency enforcement creates a strong presumption against implied private rights of action that must be overcome.31

Wisniewski’s strongest argument for overcoming the presumption of exclusive FTC enforcement is based on an analogy between § 3009 and § 215 of the Investment Advisers Act (“IAA”), the statutory provision under which the Supreme Court recognized an implied private right of action in TAMA. (See Appellant’s Br. at 16.) Section 215 provides that every contract whose formation or performance would violate the IAA “shall be void ... as regards the rights of any person” who violated the statute or knew of the facts underlying its violation. 444 U.S. at 16-17, 100 S.Ct. 242 (quoting 54 Stat. 856, as set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 80b-15).32 The Court concluded that the statutory text showed congressional intent to create a private remedy, stating:

By declaring certain contracts void, § 215 by its terms necessarily contemplates that the issue of voidness under its criteria may be litigated somewhere. At the very least Congress must have assumed that § 215 could be raised defensively in private litigation to preclude the enforcement of an investment advisers contract. But the legal consequences of voidness are typically not so limited. A person with the power to void a contract ordinarily may resort to a court to have the contract rescinded and to obtain restitution of consideration paid.... For these reasons we conclude that when Congress declared in § 215 that certain contracts are void, it intended that the customary legal incidents of voidness would follow, including the availability of a suit for rescission or for an injunction against continued operation of the contract, and for restitution.

*306444 U.S. at 18-19, 100 S.Ct. 242 (citations omitted). The Court noted in a footnote that Congress might have intended that private litigants raise § 215 claims only in state court, but that “we decline to adopt such an anomalous construction without some indication that Congress in fact wished to remit the litigation of a federal right to the state courts.” Id. at 19 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. 242.

Sections 3009 and 215 do have some similarities. Both provisions define the rights of those affected by a violation of the statute. Section 215 establishes that the wronged party to a purported contract entered in violation of the IAA is under no obligation to perform. Section 3009 establishes that the recipient of merchandise sent in violation of the unordered merchandise statute is under no obligation to return or pay for the merchandise. The TAMA Court concluded that, through the statute’s explicit declaration of voidness, Congress indicated its intent to allow the wronged party to bring an action under § 215 to rescind the void contract and to obtain restitution for consideration paid. Wisniewski argues that Congress likewise intended to create a private right of action under § 3009 that would allow recipients to obtain restitution for expenses incurred because of the sender’s misrepresentations regarding their rights.

Although the TAMA analogy is apposite, it is not convincing. We believe that the statutes in question are too different to allow an interpretation that Congress intended to create a private right of action under § 3009. We note that the private right of action allowed in TAMA was very limited. It allowed the wronged party to bring an action for “limited equitable relief,” 444 U.S. at 22, 100 S.Ct. 242, which includes only those remedies closely associated with the contract’s voidness: rescission of the contract, an injunction against the contract’s enforcement, or restitution of consideration paid, 444 U.S. at 18-19, 100 S.Ct. 242. The TAMA Court explicitly stated that a party could not obtain “compensation for any diminution in the value of the rescinding party’s investment alleged to have resulted from the adviser’s action or inaction.” Id. at 24 n. 14, 100 S.Ct. 242. Also, TAMA makes clear that a party has no private right of action to recover amounts lost to an investment adviser who engaged in the fraudulent activities prohibited by § 206, except those amounts given as consideration under a void advisory contract. Id. at 24-25 & n. 14, 100 S.Ct. 242. In other words, TAMA does not create a general presumption that Congress intended to create a private right of action for restitution whenever one party obtains a benefit from another by violating the latter party’s statutory rights. Instead, its analysis is linked closely to the explicit declaration of voidness in the statute and the “customary legal incidents” that follow from such a declaration according to established contract law principles. See id. at 19, 100 S.Ct. 242.

In contrast, § 3009 does not explicitly declare any agreement to be void. Although it creates a right for recipients to keep unsolicited merchandise, it says nothing about the consequences if a mailer violates the statute and thereby induces a recipient to disregard this right.33 As *307Sandoval tells us, creation of a right is not enough to establish congressional intent to create a private right of action to vindicate that right. Wisniewski points to no “customary legal incidents” that follow from a declaration that an individual has the personal right to keep unordered merchandise as a gift. Accordingly, we conclude that the creation of a right to keep merchandise in § 3009, unlike § 215’s voidness declaration, is not sufficient to demonstrate congressional intent to create a private right of action.

Rodale points out that Congress expressly provided private rights of action in two other provisions of the Postal Reorganization Act, suggesting that it knew how to create private rights of action when it wished. (Appellee’s Br. at 18.) Sections 3017(e)(1) and (e)(2) provide private rights of action to enforce Sections 3001(1) and 3017(d), respectively. Wisniewski counters that Congress enacted § 3017 in 1999 and that this amendment therefore cannot shed any light on the meaning of the original act. (Appellant’s Br. at 24-25.) Ro-dale concedes that these amendments do not necessarily prove Congress’s lack of intent to provide a private right of action under § 3009, but claims that they “buttress” the case already made that no such intent exists. (Appellee’s Br. at 20.) We need not decide whether to place any weight on these amendments, because they certainly cannot help Wisniewski, and other arguments independently support Ro-dale’s case against an implied private right of action.

In short, the text and structure of § 3009 strongly suggest that Congress did not intend to supplement FTC enforcement with a parallel system of private litigation but “absentmindedly forgot to mention an intended private action.” See TAMA, 444 U.S. at 20, 100 S.Ct. 242 (quoting Cannon, 441 U.S. at 742, 99 S.Ct. 1946 (Powell, J., dissenting)).34

2. Legislative History35

Both parties concede that the congressional record is “silent” with regard to the existence of a private right of action in § 3009. (See Appellant’s Br. at 26-27; Appellee’s Br. at 17.) In Touche Ross, the Court noted that the legislative history of § 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act was silent and observed that “implying a private right of action on the basis of congressional silence is a hazardous enterprise, at best.” 442 U.S. at 571, 99 S.Ct. *3082479. But this silence does not “automatically undermine” Wisniewski’s claim that an implied private right of action exists, since Congress might express its intent “in the language or structure of the statute, or in the circumstances of its enactment.” See TAMA 444 U.S. at 18, 100 S.Ct. 242. As we have already explained, however, the language and structure of the statute provide no support for a private right of action, and Wisniewski has not pointed to anything in the circumstances of the statute’s enactment or any other factors that express the requisite intent.

3. Kipperman v. Academy Life Insurance Co.

In their briefs, the parties debate the meaning and relevance of Kipperman v. Academy Life Ins. Co., 554 F.2d 377 (9th Cir.1977), the only federal appellate opinion that has addressed whether an implied private right of action exists under § 3009. In Kipperman, the Ninth Circuit applied the Cort test to § 3009 and concluded that the statute provides an implied private right of action for declaratory and restitu-tionary relief. See 554 F.2d at 380.36 Kip-perman is not persuasive authority for us because its analysis is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s subsequent decisions in Cannon, Touche Ross, and TAMA, which restructured the implied private right of action test to focus solely on legislative intent. The Kipperman opinion appears to weigh the four Cort factors roughly equally, providing no evidence that the court recognizes legislative intent as the sole determinative factor. See 554 F.2d at 380. Moreover, in its analysis of legislative intent, the Kipperman court states that “we believe Congress did not consider the question of a private right of action under section 3009,” and it provides no evidence that Congress intended that the statute be enforced through a private right of action. 554 F.2d at 380. Lack of evidence of intent probably would have presented no obstacle under Cort, which says that congressional intent to create a private right of action is unnecessary as long as Congress conveyed no explicit intent to deny one. See Cort, 422 U.S. at 82, 95 S.Ct. 2080. But Supreme Court cases decided since Cort and Kipperman have established that congressional intent to create a private right of action is critical, and the Kipperman court’s failure to find such intent would dictate a different result in that case today.

IV.

In sum, we see no indication that Congress intended to create a private right of action under § 3009. Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.