The Clean Air Act envisions a collaborative effort between States and the federal government to regulate air quality. When the Environmental Protection Agency sets standards for common air pollutants, States must submit a State Implementation Plan, or SIP, providing for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of those standards in their jurisdictions. See 42 U. S. C. §7410(a)(1). Because air currents can carry pollution across state borders, States must also design their plans with neighboring States in mind. Under the Act’s “Good Neighbor Provision,” state plans must prohibit emissions “in amounts which will . . . contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State” of the relevant air-quality standard. §7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Only if a SIP fails to satisfy the “applicable requirements” of the Act may EPA issue a Federal Implementation Plan, or FIP, for the noncompliant State that fails to correct the deficiencies in its SIP. §§7410(k)(3), (c)(1).

  In 2015, EPA revised its air-quality standards for ozone, thus triggering a requirement for States to submit new SIPs. Years later, EPA announced its intention to disapprove over 20 SIPs because the agency believed they had failed to address adequately obligations under the Good Neighbor Provision. During the public-comment period for the proposed SIP disapprovals, EPA issued a single proposed FIP to bind all those States. EPA designed its proposed FIP based on which emissions-control measures would maximize cost-effectiveness in improving ozone levels downwind and on the assumption the FIP would apply to all covered States. Commenters warned that the proposed SIP disapprovals were flawed and that a failure to achieve all the SIP disapprovals as EPA envisioned would mean that EPA would need to reassess the measures necessary to maximize cost-effective ozone-level improvements in light of a different set of States. EPA proceeded to issue its final FIP without addressing this concern. Instead, EPA announced that its plan was severable: Should any jurisdiction drop out, the plan would continue to apply unchanged to the remaining jurisdictions. Ongoing litigation over the SIP disapprovals soon vindicated at least some of the commenters’ concerns. Courts stayed 12 of the SIP disapprovals, which meant EPA could not apply its FIP to those States.

  A number of the remaining States and industry groups challenged the FIP in the D. C. Circuit. They argued that EPA’s decision to apply the FIP after so many other States had dropped out was “arbitrary” or “capricious,” and they asked the court to stay any effort to enforce the FIP against them while their appeal unfolded. The D. C. Circuit denied relief, and the parties renewed their request in this Court.

Held: The applications for a stay are granted; enforcement of EPA’s rule against the applicants shall be stayed pending the disposition of the applicants’ petition for review in the D. C. Circuit and any petition for writ of certiorari, timely sought. Pp. 9–20.

 (a) When deciding an application for a stay, the Court asks (1) whether the applicant is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) whether it will suffer irreparable injury without a stay, (3) whether the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceedings, and (4) where the public interest lies. Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434. When States and other parties seek to stay the enforcement of a federal regulation against them, often “the harms and equities [will be] very weighty on both sides.” Labrador v. Poe, 601 U. S. ___, ___ (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in grant of stay). Because that is true here, resolution of applicants’ stay request ultimately turns on the first question: Who is likely to prevail at the end. See Nken, 556 U. S., at 434. Pp. 9–11.

 (b) Applicants are likely to prevail on their arbitrary-or-capricious claim. An agency action qualifies as “arbitrary” or “capricious” if it is not “reasonable and reasonably explained.” FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U. S. 414, 423. Thus, the agency must offer “a satisfactory explanation for its action[,] including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made” and cannot simply ignore “an important aspect of the problem.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 43. EPA’s plan rested on an assumption that all the upwind States would adopt emissions-reduction measures up to a uniform level of costs to the point of diminishing returns. Commenters posed their concerns that if upwind States fell out of the planned FIP, the point at which emissions-control measures maximize cost-effective downwind air-quality improvements might shift. To this question, EPA offered no reasoned response. As a result, the applicants are likely to prevail on their argument that EPA’s final rule was not “reasonably explained,” Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U. S., at 423, and that it instead ignored “an important aspect of the problem” before it, State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S., at 43. Pp. 11–13.

 (c) EPA’s alternative arguments are unavailing. First, EPA argues that adding a “severability” provision to its final rule—i.e., providing the FIP would “continue to be implemented” without regard to the number of States remaining—responded to commenters’ concerns. But EPA’s response did not address those concerns so much as it sidestepped them. Nothing in the final rule’s severability provision actually addressed whether and how measures found to maximize cost-effectiveness in achieving downwind ozone air-quality improvements with the participation of all the upwind States remain so when many fewer States might be subject to the agency’s plan. Second, EPA insists that no one raised that concern during the public comment period. The Act’s “reasonable specificity” requirement, however, does not mean a party must rehearse the identical argument made before the agency. Here, EPA had notice of the objection, and its own statements and actions confirm the agency appreciated the concern. Third, EPA argues that applicants must return to EPA and file a motion asking it to reconsider its final rule before presenting their objection in court because the “grounds for [their] objection arose after the period for public comment.” §7607(d)(7)(B). Nothing requires the applicants to return to EPA to raise (again) a concern EPA already had a chance to address. Pp. 13–17.

Applications for stay granted.

 Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Barrett, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, JJ., joined.

Notes
¹ *Together with No. 23A350, Kinder Morgan, Inc., et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.; No. 23A351, American Forest Paper Assn. et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23A384, United States Steel Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., also on applications for stay.

Between 1999 and 2019, approximately 247,000 people in the United States died from prescription-opioid overdoses. Respondent Purdue Pharma sits at the center of that crisis. Owned and controlled by the Sackler family, Purdue began marketing OxyContin, an opioid prescription pain reliever, in the mid-1990s. After Purdue earned billions of dollars in sales on the drug, in 2007 one of its affiliates pleaded guilty to a federal felony for misbranding OxyContin as a less-addictive, less-abusable alternative to other pain medications. Thousands of lawsuits followed. Fearful that the litigation would eventually impact them directly, the Sacklers initiated a “milking program,” withdrawing from Purdue approximately $11 billion—roughly 75% of the firm’s total assets—over the next decade.

  Those withdrawals left Purdue in a significantly weakened financial state. And in 2019, Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During that process, the Sacklers proposed to return approximately $4.3 billion to Purdue’s bankruptcy estate. In exchange, the Sackers sought a judicial order releasing the family from all opioid-related claims and enjoining victims from bringing such claims against them in the future. The bankruptcy court approved Purdue’s proposed reorganization plan, including its provisions concerning the Sackler discharge. But the district court vacated that decision, holding that nothing in the law authorizes bankruptcy courts to extinguish claims against third parties like the Sacklers, without the claimants’ consent. A divided panel of the Second Circuit reversed the district court and revived the bankruptcy court’s order approving a modified reorganization plan.

Held: The bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants. Pp. 7–19.

 (a) When a debtor files for bankruptcy, it “creates an estate” that includes virtually all the debtor’s assets. 11 U. S. C. §541(a). Under Chapter 11, the debtor must develop a reorganization plan governing the distribution of the estate’s assets and present it to the bankruptcy court for approval. §§1121, 1123, 1129, 1141. A bankruptcy court’s order confirming a reorganization plan “discharges the debtor” of certain pre-petition debts. §1141(d)(1)(A). In this case, the Sacklers have not filed for bankruptcy or placed all their assets on the table for distribution to creditors, yet they seek what essentially amounts to a discharge. No provision of the code authorizes that kind of relief. Pp. 7–17.

  (1) Section 1123(b) addresses the kinds of provisions that may be included in a Chapter 11 plan. That section contains five specific paragraphs, followed by a catchall provision. The first five paragraphs all concern the debtor’s rights and responsibilities, as well as its relationship with its creditors. The catchall provides that a plan “may” also “include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title.” All agree that the first five paragraphs do not authorize the Sackler discharge. But, according to the plan proponents and the Second Circuit, paragraph (6) broadly permits any term not expressly forbidden by the code so long as a judge deems it “appropriate.” Because provisions like the Sackler discharge are not expressly prohibited, they reason, paragraph (6) necessarily permits them. That is not correct. When faced with a catchall phrase like paragraph (6), courts do not necessarily afford it the broadest possible construction it can bear. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U. S. 497, 512. Instead, we generally appreciate that the catchall must be interpreted in light of its surrounding context and read to “embrace only objects similar in nature” to the specific examples preceding it. Ibid. Here, each of the preceding paragraphs concerns the rights and responsibilities of the debtor; and they authorize a bankruptcy court to adjust claims without consent only to the extent such claims concern the debtor. While paragraph (6) doubtlessly confers additional authorities on a bankruptcy court, it cannot be read under the canon of ejusdem generis to endow a bankruptcy court with the “radically different” power to discharge the debts of a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants. Epic Systems Corp., 584 U. S., at 513. And while the dissent reaches a contrary conclusion, it does so only by elevating its view of the bankruptcy code’s purported purpose over the text’s clear focus on the debtor. Pp. 7–13.

  (2) The code’s statutory scheme further forecloses the Sackler discharge. The code generally reserves discharge for a debtor who places substantially all of their assets on the table. §1141(d)(1)(A); see also §541(a). And, ordinarily, it does not include claims based on “fraud” or those alleging “willful and malicious injury.” §§523(a)(2), (4), (6). The Sackler discharge defies these limitations. The Sacklers have not filed for bankruptcy, nor have they placed virtually all their assets on the table for distribution to creditors. Yet, they seek an order discharging a broad sweep of present and future claims against them, including ones for fraud and willful injury. In all of these ways, the Sacklers seek to pay less than the code ordinarily requires and receive more than it normally permits. Contrary to the dissent’s suggestion, plan proponents cannot evade these limitations simply by rebranding their discharge a “release.” Pp. 13–16.

  (3) History offers a final strike against the plan proponents’ construction of §1123(b)(6). Pre-code practice, we have said, may sometimes inform the meaning of the code’s more “ambiguous” provisions. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, 566 U. S. 639, 649. And every bankruptcy law cited by the parties and their amici—from 1800 until the enactment of the present bankruptcy code in 1978—generally reserved the benefits of discharge to the debtor who offered a “fair and full surrender of [its] property.” Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 176. Had Congress meant to reshape traditional practice so profoundly in the present bankruptcy code, extending to courts the capacious new power the plan proponents claim, one might have expected it to say so expressly “somewhere in the [c]ode itself.” Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U. S. 410, 420. Pp. 16–17.

 (b) In the end, the plan proponents default to policy. The Sacklers, they say, will not return any funds to Purdue’s estate unless the bankruptcy court grants them the sweeping nonconsensual release and injunction they seek. Without the Sackler discharge, they predict, victims will be left without any means of recovery. But the U. S. Trustee disagrees. As he tells it, the potentially massive liability the Sacklers face may induce them to negotiate for consensual releases on terms more favorable to all the claimants. In addition, the Trustee warns, a ruling for the Sacklers would provide a roadmap for tortfeasors to misuse the bankruptcy system in future cases. While both sides may have their points, this Court is the wrong audience for such policy disputes. Our only proper task is to interpret and apply the law; and nothing in present law authorizes the Sackler discharge. Pp. 17–19.

 (c) Today’s decision is a narrow one. Nothing in the opinion should be construed to call into question consensual third-party releases offered in connection with a bankruptcy reorganization plan. Nor does the Court express a view on what qualifies as a consensual release or pass upon a plan that provides for the full satisfaction of claims against a third-party nondebtor. Additionally, because this case involves only a stayed reorganization plan, the Court does not address whether its reading of the bankruptcy code would justify unwinding reorganization plans that have already become effective and been substantially consummated. Confining ourselves to the question presented, the Court holds only that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seeks to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants. Because the Second Circuit held otherwise, its judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. P. 19.

69 F. 4th 45, reversed and remanded.

 Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Jackson, JJ., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined.

In the aftermath of the Wall Street Crash of 1929, Congress passed a suite of laws designed to combat securities fraud and increase market transparency. Three such statues are relevant: The Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. These Acts respectively govern the registration of securities, the trading of securities, and the activities of investment advisers. Although each regulates different aspects of the securities markets, their pertinent provisions—collectively referred to by regulators as “the antifraud provisions,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 73a, 202a—target the same basic behavior: misrepresenting or concealing material facts.

  To enforce these Acts, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC may bring an enforcement action in one of two forums. It can file suit in federal court, or it can adjudicate the matter itself. The forum the SEC selects dictates certain aspects of the litigation. In federal court, a jury finds the facts, an Article III judge presides, and the Federal Rules of Evidence and the ordinary rules of discovery govern the litigation. But when the SEC adjudicates the matter in-house, there are no juries. The Commission presides while its Division of Enforcement prosecutes the case. The Commission or its delegee—typically an Administrative Law Judge—also finds facts and decides discovery disputes, and the SEC’s Rules of Practice govern.

  One remedy for securities violations is civil penalties. Originally, the SEC could only obtain civil penalties from unregistered investment advisers in federal court. Then, in 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Act authorized the SEC to impose such penalties through its own in-house proceedings.

  Shortly after passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC initiated an enforcement action for civil penalties against investment adviser George Jarkesy, Jr., and his firm, Patriot28, LLC for alleged violations of the “antifraud provisions” contained in the federal securities laws. The SEC opted to adjudicate the matter in-house. As relevant, the final order determined that Jarkesy and Patriot28 had committed securities violations and levied a civil penalty of $300,000. Jarkesy and Patriot28 petitioned for judicial review. The Fifth Circuit vacated the order on the ground that adjudicating the matter in-house violated the defendants’ Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

Held: When the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. Pp. 6–27.

 (a) The question presented by this case—whether the Seventh Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury trial when the SEC seeks civil penalties for securities fraud—is straightforward. Following the analysis set forth in Granfinanciera, S. A. v. Nordberg, 492 U. S. 33, and Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412, this action implicates the Seventh Amendment because the SEC’s antifraud provisions replicate common law fraud. And the “public rights” exception to Article III jurisdiction does not apply, because the present action does not fall within any of the distinctive areas involving governmental prerogatives where the Court has concluded that a matter may be resolved outside of an Article III court, without a jury.

 (b) The Court first explains why this action implicates the Seventh Amendment.

  (1) The right to trial by jury is “of such importance and occupies so firm a place in our history and jurisprudence that any seeming curtailment of the right” has always been and “should be scrutinized with the utmost care.” Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U. S. 474, 486. When the British attempted to evade American juries by siphoning adjudications to juryless admiralty, vice admiralty, and chancery courts, the Americans protested and eventually cited the British practice as a justification for declaring Independence. In the Revolution’s aftermath, concerns that the proposed Constitution lacked a provision guaranteeing a jury trial right in civil cases was perhaps the “most success[ful]” critique leveled against the document during the ratification debates. The Federalist No. 83, p. 495. To fix that flaw, the Framers promptly adopted the Seventh Amendment. Ever since, “every encroachment upon [the jury trial right] has been watched with great jealousy.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 446. Pp. 7–8.

  (2) The Seventh Amendment guarantees that in “[s]uits at common law . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.” The right itself is not limited to the “common-law forms of action recognized” when the Seventh Amendment was ratified. Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 193. Rather, it “embrace[s] all suits which are not of equity or admiralty jurisdiction, whatever may be the peculiar form which they may assume.” Parsons, 3 Pet., at 447. That includes statutory claims that are “legal in nature.” Granfinanciera, 492 U. S., at 53.

 To determine whether a suit is legal in nature, courts must consider whether the cause of action resembles common law causes of action, and whether the remedy is the sort that was traditionally obtained in a court of law. Of these factors, the remedy is the more important. And in this case, the remedy is all but dispositive. For respondents’ alleged fraud, the SEC seeks civil penalties, a form of monetary relief. Such relief is legal in nature when it is designed to punish or deter the wrongdoer rather than solely to “restore the status quo.” Tull, 481 U. S., at 422. The Acts condition the availability and size of the civil penalties available to the SEC based on considerations such as culpability, deterrence, and recidivism. See §§77h–1; 78u–2, 80b–3. These factors go beyond restoring the status quo and so are legal in nature. The SEC is also not obligated to use civil penalties to compensate victims. SEC civil penalties are thus “a type of remedy at common law that could only be enforced in courts of law.” Tull, 481 U. S., at 422. This suit implicates the Seventh Amendment right and a defendant would be entitled to a jury on these claims.

 The close relationship between federal securities fraud and common law fraud confirms that conclusion. Both target the same basic conduct: misrepresenting or concealing material facts. By using “fraud” and other common law terms of art when it drafted the federal securities laws, Congress incorporated common law fraud prohibitions into those laws. This Court therefore often considers common law fraud principles when interpreting federal securities law. See, e.g., Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 544 U. S. 336, 343–344. While federal securities fraud and common law fraud are not identical, the close relationship between the two confirms that this action is “legal in nature.” Granfinanciera, 492 U. S., at 53. Pp. 8–13.

 (c) Because the claims at issue here implicate the Seventh Amendment, a jury trial is required unless the “public rights” exception applies. Under this exception, Congress may assign the matter for decision to an agency without a jury, consistent with the Seventh Amendment. For the reasons below, the exception does not apply. Pp. 13–27.

  (1) The Constitution prevents Congress from “withdraw[ing] from judicial cognizance any matter which, from its nature, is the subject of a suit at the common law.” Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 284. Once such a suit “is brought within the bounds of federal jurisdiction,” an Article III court must decide it, with a jury if the Seventh Amendment applies. Stern v. Marshall, 564 U. S. 462, 484. On that basis, this Court has repeatedly explained that matters concerning private rights may not be removed from Article III courts. See, e.g., Murray’s Lessee, 18 How., at 284. If a suit is in the nature of an action at common law, then the matter presumptively concerns private rights, and adjudication by an Article III court is mandatory. Stern, 564 U. S., at 484.

 The Court also recognizes a class of cases concerning “public rights.” Such matters “historically could have been determined exclusively by [the executive and legislative] branches.” Id., at 493 (internal quotation marks omitted). No involvement by an Article III court in the initial adjudication of public rights claims is necessary. Certain categories that have been recognized as falling within the exception include matters concerning: the collection of revenue; aspects of customs law; immigration law; relations with Indian tribes; the administration of public lands; and the granting of public benefits. The Court’s opinions governing this exception have not always spoken in precise terms. But “even with respect to matters that arguably fall within the scope of the ‘public rights’ doctrine, the presumption is in favor of Article III courts.” Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50, 69, n. 23 (plurality opinion). Pp. 13–18.

  (2) In Granfinanciera, this Court previously considered whether the Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial “in the face of Congress’ decision to allow a non-Article III tribunal to adjudicate” a statutory “fraud claim.” 492 U. S., at 37, 50. There the issue was whether Congress’s designation of fraudulent conveyance actions as “core [bankruptcy] proceedings” authorized non-Article III bankruptcy judges to hear them without juries. Id., at 50. The Court held that the designation was not permissible, even under the public rights exception. To determine whether the claim implicated the Seventh Amendment, the Court applied the principles distilled in Tull. Surveying English cases and considering the remedy these suits provided, the Court concluded that fraudulent conveyance actions were “quintessentially suits at common law.” Granfinanciera, 492 U. S., at 56. Because these actions were akin to “suits at common law” and were not “closely intertwined” with the bankruptcy process, the Court held that the public rights exception did not apply, and a jury was required. Id., at 54, 56. Pp. 19–20.

  (3) Granfinanciera effectively decides this case. The action here was brought under the “anti-fraud provisions” of the federal securities laws and provide civil penalties that can “only be enforced in courts of law.” Tull, 481 U. S., at 422. They target the same basic conduct as common law fraud, employ the same terms of art, and operate pursuant to similar legal principles. In short, this action involves a “matter[ ] of private rather than public right.” Granfinanciera, 492 U. S., at 56. Pp. 20–21.

  (4) The SEC claims that the public rights exception applies because Congress created “new statutory obligations, impose[d] civil penalties for their violation, and then commit[ted] to an administrative agency the function of deciding whether a violation ha[d] in fact occurred.” Brief for Petitioner 21. Granfinanciera does away with much of the SEC’s argument. Congress cannot “conjure away the Seventh Amendment by mandating that traditional legal claims be . . . taken to an administrative tribunal.” 492 U. S., at 52. The SEC’s argument that Granfinanciera does not apply because the Government is the party bringing this action also fails. What matters is the substance of the suit, not where it is brought, who brings it, or how it is labeled. Northern Pipeline Constr. Co., 458 U. S., at 69 n. 23 (plurality opinion). Pp. 21–22.

  (5) The Court’s opinion in Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 430 U. S. 442, is not to the contrary. The litigation in that case arose under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Facing agency enforcement actions, two employers alleged that the agency’s adjudicatory authority violated the Seventh Amendment. See id., at 448–449. The Court concluded that Congress could assign the OSH Act adjudications to an agency because the claims involved “a new cause of action, and remedies therefor, unknown to the common law.” Id., at 461. The cases Atlas Roofing relied upon applied the “public rights” exception to actions that were “ ‘not . . . suit[s] at common law or in the nature of such . . . suit[s].’ ” Id., at 453. Atlas Roofing therefore does not apply here, where the statutory claim is “ ‘in the nature of ’ ” a common law suit. Id., at 453. Later rulings also foreclose reading Atlas Roofing as the SEC does. This Court clarified in Tull that the Seventh Amendment does apply to novel statutory regimes, so long as the statutory claims are akin to common law claims. See 481 U. S., at 421–423. And the Court has explained that the public rights exception does not apply automatically whenever Congress assigns a matter to an agency for adjudication. See Granfinanciera, 492 U. S., at 52. Pp. 22–27.

 The Court does not reach the remaining issues in this case.

34 F. 4th 446, affirmed and remanded.

 Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kagan and Jackson, JJ., joined.

Per Curiam.

 The writs of certiorari before judgment are dismissed as improvidently granted, and the stays entered by the Court on January 5, 2024, are vacated.

It is so ordered.