Cite as: 595 U. S. ____ (2022) 9 Opinion of the Court §1806(f ) because we reverse the Ninth Circuit on an alternative ground—namely, that even as interpreted by respondents, §1806(f ) does not displace the state secrets privilege. B We reach this conclusion for two reasons. 1 First, the text of FISA weighs heavily against respondents’ displacement argument. FISA makes no reference to the state secrets privilege. It neither mentions the privilege by name nor uses any identifiable synonym, and its only reference to the subject of privilege reflects a desire to avoid the alteration of privilege law. See §1806(a). 6 The absence of any statutory reference to the state secrets privilege is strong evidence that the availability of the privilege was not altered in any way. Regardless of whether the state secrets privilege is rooted only in the common law (as respondents argue) or also in the Constitution (as the Government argues), the privilege should not be held to have been abrogated or limited unless Congress has at least used clear statutory language. See Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. of Va., 464 U. S. 30, 35 (1983) (presumption against repeal of the common law); Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 12) (canon of constitutional avoidance). 2 Even if respondents’ interpretation of §1806(f ) is accepted, nothing about the operation of that provision is at all incompatible with the state secrets privilege. The Ninth —————— 6 That provision states: “No otherwise privileged communication obtained in accordance with, or in violation of, the provisions of this subchapter shall lose its privileged character.”