Petitioner, a 45-year-old postal worker, filed suit claiming that her employer had violated the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U. S. C. sec.633a(a)--which requires that "[a]ll personnel actions affecting employees ... at least 40 years of age ... be made free from any discrimination based on age"--by subjecting her to various forms of retaliation after she filed an administrative ADEA complaint. The District Court granted respondent summary judgment. The First Circuit affirmed on the ground that sec.633a(a)'s prohibition of "discrimination based on age" does not cover retaliation.

Held: Section 633a(a) prohibits retaliation against a federal employee who complains of age discrimination. Pp. 3-16.

(a) In so concluding, the Court follows the reasoning of two prior decisions ruling that retaliation is covered by similar language in other antidiscrimination statutes. First, in Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U. S. 229 , the Court held that a retaliation claim could be brought under 42 U. S. C. sec.1982, which provides that "[a]ll citizens ... shall have the same right ... as is enjoyed by white citizens ... to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property." While sec.1982 does not use the phrase "discrimination based on race," that is its plain meaning. See, e.g., Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed., 544 U. S. 167 . Second, the Jackson Court, id., at 173-174, relied on Sullivan in holding that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U. S. C. sec.1681(a), which prohibits "discrimination" "on the basis of sex" in educational programs receiving federal aid, reached retaliation against a public school teacher for complaining about sex discrimination in his school's athletic program. 544 U. S., at 176-177. The ADEA language at issue ("discrimination based on age") is not materially different from the language at issue in Jackson and is the functional equivalent of the language at issue in Sullivan, see Jackson, supra, at 177. And the context in which the statutory language appears is the same in all three cases: remedial provisions aimed at prohibiting discrimination. Respondent neither asks the Court to overrule Sullivan or Jackson nor questions those decisions' reasoning, and the Government, both in Jackson and in CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, ante, p. ___, has specifically urged the Court to follow Sullivan's reasoning. Pp. 3-6.

(b) The three grounds on which the First Circuit sought to distinguish Jackson in support of the Circuit's perception that there is a clear difference between causes of action for discrimination and for retaliation are not persuasive. Pp. 6-9.

(1) The Circuit places too much reliance on the fact that the ADEA expressly creates a private right of action, whereas the right of action under Title IX, the statute at issue in Jackson, is implied and not express, see Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677 . The assertion that this distinction allowed the Jackson Court greater leeway to adopt an expansive interpretation of Title IX improperly conflates the analytically distinct questions whether a statute confers a private right of action and whether the statute's substantive prohibition reaches a particular form of conduct. Moreover, confusing these questions would lead to exceedingly strange results. For example, Title IX's prohibition of " discrimination" "on the basis of sex" either does or does not reach retaliation, and the presence or absence of another statutory provision expressly creating a private right of action cannot alter sec.1681(a)'s scope. Pp. 6-7.

(2) Also unavailing is the Circuit's attempt to distinguish Jackson on the ground that retaliation claims play a more important role under Title IX than under the ADEA. This argument ignores the basis for Jackson, which did not hold that Title IX prohibits retaliation because such claims are important as a policy matter, but, instead, relied on an interpretation of the "text of Title IX." 544 U. S., at 173, 178. Jackson's statement that "teachers ... are often in the best position to vindicate [student] rights," id., at 181, did not address the question whether the statutory term "discrimination" encompasses retaliation, but was made in response to the school board's argument that only a "victim of the discrimination," not third parties, should be allowed to assert a retaliation claim, id., at 179-182. P. 8.

(3) Finally, the Circuit's attempt to distinguish Jackson on the ground that Title IX was adopted in response to Sullivan, whereas there is no evidence in the ADEA's legislative history that sec.633a was adopted in a similar context, is rejected. Jackson did not identify any legislative history evidence, but merely observed that because "Congress enacted Title IX just three years after Sullivan," it was " 'realistic to presume that Congress was thoroughly familiar with [Sullivan] and ... expected [Title IX] to be interpreted in conformity with [it]." 544 U. S., at 176. What Jackson said about the relationship between Sullivan and Title IX's enactment can also be said about the relationship between Sullivan and sec.633a's enactment, since the latter provision was enacted just five years after Sullivan was decided and two years after Title IX was enacted. Pp. 8-9.

(c) Respondent's other arguments supporting the contention that sec.633a(a) does not encompass retaliation claims are rejected. Pp. 10-16.

(1) Respondent places too much reliance on the presence of an ADEA provision specifically prohibiting retaliation against individuals complaining about private-sector age discrimination, sec.623(d), and the absence of a similar provision in sec.633a. Because sec.sec.623 and 633a were enacted seven years apart rather than simultaneously, see Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320 , and because they are couched in very different terms--with sec.sec.623(a)(1)-(3) listing specific forbidden employer practices in contrast to sec.633a(a)'s broad prohibition of "discrimination"--the absence of a federal-sector provision similar to sec.623(d) does not provide a sufficient reason to depart from Sullivan and Jackson. Pp. 10-12.

(2) There is even less merit in respondent's reliance on sec.633a(f), which provides that personnel actions by a federal entity covered by sec.633a "shall not be subject to, or affected by, any provision of this chapter" other than sec.633a and sec.631(b), which restricts ADEA coverage to persons at least 40 years old. Respondent's contention that recognizing federal-sector retaliation claims would make sec.623(d) applicable to federal-sector employers in contravention of sec.633a(f) is unsound because the Court's holding today is not based on sec.623(d) but on sec.633a(a) itself, "unaffected by other [ADEA] sections," Lehman v. Nakshian, 453 U. S. 156 . P. 13.

(3) Also unavailing is respondent's argument that the history of congressional and Executive Branch responses to discrimination in federal employment demonstrates that when Congress enacted sec.633a, it anticipated that the pre-existing reprisal regulations of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) would be extended to cover federal-sector age discrimination and be the exclusive avenue for asserting retaliation claims. This argument is not supported by direct evidence, but rests on unsupported speculation, and, in any event, is self-contradictory in that, if sec.633a(a) does not confer an antiretaliation right, there is no reason to assume that Congress expected the CSC to issue new regulations prohibiting retaliation. Pp. 13-14.

(4) Respondent's final argument--that sovereign immunity principles require that sec.633a(a) be read narrowly as prohibiting substantive age discrimination but not retaliation--is unpersuasive. The rule of construction requiring that "[a] waiver of the Federal Government's sovereign immunity ... be unequivocally expressed in statutory text" and "strictly construed ... in favor of the sovereign," Lane v. Peńa, 518 U. S. 187 , is satisfied here by sec.633a(c), which unequivocally waives sovereign immunity for a claim brought by "[a]ny person aggrieved" by a sec.633a violation. Unlike sec.663a(c), sec.633a(a) is not a waiver of sovereign immunity; it is a substantive provision outlawing "discrimination." That the sec.633a(c) waiver applies to sec.633a(a) claims does not mean that sec.633a(a) must surmount the same high hurdle as sec.633a(c). Pp. 15-16.

476 F. 3d 54, reversed and remanded.

Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined as to all but Part I. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined.

Claiming that petitioner CBOCS West, Inc., dismissed him because he is black and because he complained to managers that a black co-employee was also dismissed for race-based reasons, respondent Humphries filed suit charging that CBOCS' actions violated both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U. S. C. sec.1981, the latter of which gives "[a]ll persons ... the same right ... to make and enforce contracts ... as is enjoyed by white citizens." The District Court dismissed the Title VII claims for failure to timely pay filing fees and granted CBOCS summary judgment on the sec.1981 claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed on the direct discrimination claim, but remanded for a trial on Humphries' sec.1981 retaliation claim, rejecting CBOCS' argument that sec.1981 did not encompass such a claim.

Held: Section 1981 encompasses retaliation claims. Pp. 2-14.

(a) Because this conclusion rests in significant part upon stare decisis principles, the Court examines the pertinent interpretive history. (1) In 1969, Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U. S. 229 , as later interpreted and relied on by Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed., 544 U. S. 167 , recognized that retaliation actions are encompassed by 42 U. S. C. sec.1982, which provides that "[a]ll citizens ... shall have the same right, ... , as is enjoyed by white citizens ... to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property." (2) This Court has long interpreted sec.sec.1981 and 1982 alike because they were enacted together, have common language, and serve the same purpose of providing black citizens the same legal rights as enjoyed by other citizens. See, e.g., Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U. S. 160 . (3) In 1989, Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164 , without mention of retaliation, narrowed sec.1981 by excluding from its scope conduct occurring after formation of the employment contract, where retaliation would most likely be found. Subsequently, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which was designed to supersede Patterson, see Jones v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U. S. 369 , by explicitly defining sec.1981's scope to include post-contract-formation conduct, sec.1981(b). (4) Since 1991, the Federal Courts of Appeals have uniformly interpreted sec.1981 as encompassing retaliation actions. Sullivan, as interpreted by Jackson, as well as a long line of related cases where the Court construes sec.sec.1981 and 1982 similarly, lead to the conclusion that the view that sec.1981 encompasses retaliation claims is well embedded in the law. Stare decisis considerations strongly support the Court's adherence to that view. Such considerations impose a considerable burden on those who would seek a different interpretation that would necessarily unsettle many Court precedents. Pp. 2-8.

(b) CBOCS' several arguments, taken separately or together, cannot justify a departure from this well-embedded interpretation of sec.1981. First, while CBOCS is correct that sec.1981's plain text does not expressly refer to retaliation, that alone is not sufficient to carry the day, given this Court's long recognition that sec.1982 provides protection against retaliation; Jackson's recent holding that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 includes an antiretaliation remedy, despite Title IX's failure to use the word "retaliation," 544 U. S., at 173-174, 176; and Sullivan's refusal to embrace a similar argument, see 396 U. S., at 241. Second, contrary to CBOCS' assertion, Congress' failure to include an explicit antiretaliation provision in its 1991 amendment of sec.1981 does not demonstrate an intention not to cover retaliation, but is more plausibly explained by the fact that, given Sullivan and the new statutory language nullifying Patterson, there was no need to include explicit retaliation language. Third, the argument that applying sec.1981 to employment-related retaliation actions would create an overlap with Title VII, allegedly allowing a retaliation plaintiff to circumvent Title VII's detailed administrative and procedural mechanisms and thereby undermine their effectiveness, proves too much. Precisely the same kind of Title VII/sec.1981 "overlap" and potential circumvention exists in respect to employment-related direct discrimination, yet Congress explicitly and intentionally created that overlap, Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U. S. 36 . Fourth, contrary to its arguments, CBOCS cannot find support in Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. White, 548 U. S. 53 , and Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 546 U. S. 470 . While Burlington distinguished discrimination based on status (e.g., as women or black persons) from discrimination based on conduct (e.g., whistle-blowing that leads to retaliation), it did not suggest that Congress must separate the two in all events. Moreover, while Domino's Pizza and other more recent cases may place greater emphasis on statutory language than did Sullivan, any arguable change in interpretive approach would not justify reexamination of well-established prior law under stare decisis principles. Pp. 9-14.

474 F. 3d 387, affirmed.

Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Alito, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) requires "covered jurisdictions" to obtain preclearance from the District Court for the District of Columbia or the Department of Justice (DOJ) before "enact[ing] or seek[ing] to administer" any changes in their practices or procedures affecting voting.

Alabama is a covered jurisdiction. As of its November 1, 1964 coverage date, state law provided that midterm vacancies on county commissions were to be filled by gubernatorial appointment. In 1985, the state legislature passed, and the DOJ precleared, a "local law" providing that Mobile County Commission midterm vacancies would be filled by special election rather than gubernatorial appointment. In 1987, the Governor called a special election for the first midterm opening on the Commission postpassage of the 1985 Act. A Mobile County voter, Willie Stokes, filed suit in state court seeking to enjoin the election, but the state trial court denied his request. Although Stokes immediately appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, the special election went forward and the winner took office. Subsequently, however, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that the 1985 Act violated the State Constitution.

When the next midterm Commission vacancy occurred in 2005, the method of filling the opening again became the subject of litigation. In 2004, the state legislature had passed, and the DOJ had precleared, a law providing for gubernatorial appointment as the means to fill county commission vacancies unless a local law authorized a special election. When the vacancy arose, appellee voters and state legislators (hereinafter Kennedy) filed suit against the Governor in state court, asserting that the 2004 Act had revived the 1985 Act and cured its infirmity under the Alabama Constitution. Adopting Kennedy's view, the trial court ordered the Governor to call a special election. Before the election took place, however, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order, holding that the 2004 Act did not resurrect the 1985 Act. The Governor therefore filled the vacancy by appointment, naming Commissioner Chastang to the open seat. Kennedy then commenced this suit in Federal District Court. Invoking sec.5 of the VRA, she sought declaratory relief and an injunction barring the Governor from filling the Commission vacancy by appointment unless and until Alabama gained preclearance of the Stokes and Kennedy decisions. A three-judge District Court granted the requested declaration in August 2006. It determined that the "baseline" against which any change should be measured was the 1985 Act's provision requiring special elections, a measure both precleared and put into "force or effect" with the special election in 1987. It followed, the District Court reasoned, that the gubernatorial appointment called for by Stokes and Kennedy ranked as a change from the baseline practice; consequently, those decisions should have been precleared. Deferring affirmative relief, the District Court gave the State 90 days to obtain preclearance. When the DOJ denied the State's request for preclearance, Kennedy returned to the District Court and filed a motion for further relief. On May 1, 2007, the District Court vacated the Governor's appointment of Chastang to the Commission, finding it unlawful under sec.5 of the VRA. The Governor filed a notice of appeal in the District Court on May 18.

Held:

1. Because the District Court did not render its final judgment until May 1, 2007, the Governor's May 18 notice of appeal was timely. Under sec.5, "any appeal" from the decision of a three-judge district court "shall lie to the Supreme Court," 42 U. S. C. sec.1973c(a), but the appeal must be filed within 60 days of a district court's entry of a final judgment, see 28 U. S. C. sec.2101(b). Kennedy maintains that the District Court's August 2006 order qualified as a final judgment, while the Governor maintains that the District Court's final judgment was the May 1 order vacating Chastang's appointment. A final judgment "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." Catlin v. United States, 324 U. S. 229 . The August 2006 order declared that preclearance was required for the Stokes and Kennedy decisions, but left unresolved Kennedy's demand for injunctive relief. An order resolving liability without addressing a plaintiff's requests for relief is not final. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U. S. 737 . Pp. 9-10.

2. For sec.5 purposes, the 1985 Act never gained "force or effect." Therefore, Alabama's reinstatement of its prior practice of gubernatorial appointment did not rank as a "change" requiring preclearance. Pp. 10-20.

(a) In order to determine whether an election practice constitutes a "change" as defined in this Court's sec.5 precedents, the practice must be compared with the covered jurisdiction's "baseline," i.e., the most recent practice both precleared and "in force or effect"--or, absent any change since the jurisdiction's coverage date, the practice "in force or effect" on that date. See Young v. Fordice, 520 U. S. 273 . Pp. 10-12.

(b) While not controlling here, three precedents addressing sec.5's term of art "in force or effect" provide the starting point for the Court's inquiry. In Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379 , the question was what practice had been "in force or effect" in Canton, Mississippi, on that State's 1964 coverage date. A 1962 state law required at-large elections for city aldermen, but Canton had elected aldermen by wards in 1961 and again in 1965. This Court held that the city's 1969 attempt to move to at-large elections was a change requiring preclearance because election by ward was "the procedure in fact 'in force or effect' in Canton" on the coverage date. Id., at 395. Similarly, in City of Lockhart v. United States, 460 U. S. 125 , the question was what practice had been "in force or effect" in Lockhart, Texas, on the relevant coverage date. The city had used a "numbered-post" system to elect its city council for more than 50 years. Though the numbered-post system's validity under state law was "not entirely clear," id., at 132, "[t]he proper comparison [wa]s between the new system and the system actually in effect on" the coverage date, "regardless of what state law might have required," ibid. Finally, in Young v. Fordice, the question was whether a provisional voter registration plan precleared and implemented by Mississippi election officials, who believed that the state legislature was about to amend the relevant law, had been "in force or effect." See 520 U. S., at 279. As it turned out, the state legislature failed to pass the amendment, and voters who had registered under the provisional plan were required to reregister. This Court held that the provisional plan was a "temporary misapplication of state law" that, for sec.5 purposes, was "never 'in force or effect.' " Id., at 282. Young thus qualified the general rule of Perkins and Lockhart: A practice best characterized as nothing more than a "temporary misapplication of state law," is not in "force or effect," even if actually implemented by state election officials, 520 U. S., at 282. Pp. 12-15.

(c) If the only relevant factors were the length of time a practice was in use and the degree to which it was implemented, this would be a close case under Perkins, Lockhart, and Young. But an extraordinary circumstance not present in any past case is operative here, impelling the conclusion that the 1985 Act was never "in force or effect": The Act was challenged in state court at first opportunity, the lone election was held in the shadow of that legal challenge, and the Act was ultimately invalidated by the Alabama Supreme Court. These characteristics plainly distinguish this case from Perkins and Lockhart, where the state judiciary had no involvement. The prompt legal challenge and the State Supreme Court's decision also provide strong cause to conclude that, in the sec.5 context, the 1985 Act was never "in force or effect." A State's highest court is unquestionably "the ultimate exposito[r] of state law." Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 . And because the State Supreme Court's prerogative to say what Alabama law is merits respect in federal forums, a law challenged at first opportunity and invalidated by Alabama's highest court is properly regarded as null and void ab initio, incapable of effecting any change in Alabama law or establishing a voting practice under sec.5. There is no good reason to hold otherwise simply because Alabama's highest court did not render its decision until after an election was held. To the contrary, practical considerations sometimes require courts to allow elections to proceed despite pending legal challenges. Cf. Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1 (per curiam). Ruling otherwise would have the anomalous effect of binding Alabama to an unconstitutional practice because of the state trial court's error. The trial court misconstrued the State's law and, due to that court's error, an election took place. That sequence of events, the District Court held, made the 1985 Act part of Alabama's sec.5 baseline. In essence, the District Court's decision gave controlling effect to the erroneous trial court ruling and rendered the Alabama Supreme Court's corrections inoperative. That sort of interference with a state supreme court's ability to determine the content of state law is more than a hypothetical concern. The realities of election litigation are such that lower state courts often allow elections to proceed based on erroneous interpretations of state law later corrected on appeal. The Court declines to adopt a rigid interpretation of "in force or effect" that would deny state supreme courts the opportunity to correct similar errors in the future. Pp. 15-19.

(d) Although this Court's reasoning and the facts of this case should make the narrow scope of the holding apparent, some cautionary observations are in order. First, the presence of a judgment by Alabama's highest court invalidating the 1985 Act under the State Constitution is critical here. The outcome might be different were a potentially unlawful practice simply abandoned by state officials after initial use in an election. Cf. Perkins, 400 U. S., at 395. Second, the 1985 Act was challenged the first time it was invoked and struck down shortly thereafter. The same result would not necessarily follow if a practice were invalidated only after enforcement without challenge in several previous elections. Cf. Young, 520 U. S., at 283. Finally, the consequence of the Alabama Supreme Court's Stokes decision was to reinstate a practice--gubernatorial appointment--identical to the State's sec.5 baseline. Preclearance might well have been required had the court instead ordered the State to adopt a novel practice. Pp. 19-20.

Reversed and remanded.

Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, J., joined.