{"title":"Preferences are Public Rights","authors":"Brook E. Gotberg","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2307186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, there is widespread uncertainty as to what other proceedings may constitutionally fall within a bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction. Supreme Court jurisprudence has been cryptic regarding the constitutional limitations of non-Article III courts, but the Court has identified a \"public rights exception\" to the general rule that the judicial power must be exercised only by judges with life tenure and salary protection. This public rights exception has not yet been explicitly extended to a bankruptcy proceeding, but the reasoning of the Court strongly suggests that a trustee’s motion to avoid preferences would fall under the public rights exception, as a proceeding stemming exclusively from bankruptcy law and necessary to resolve claims against the estate. Accordingly, and contrary to what most scholars have suggested, preference proceedings fit comfortably within the jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts, even after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Stern.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2307186","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, there is widespread uncertainty as to what other proceedings may constitutionally fall within a bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction. Supreme Court jurisprudence has been cryptic regarding the constitutional limitations of non-Article III courts, but the Court has identified a "public rights exception" to the general rule that the judicial power must be exercised only by judges with life tenure and salary protection. This public rights exception has not yet been explicitly extended to a bankruptcy proceeding, but the reasoning of the Court strongly suggests that a trustee’s motion to avoid preferences would fall under the public rights exception, as a proceeding stemming exclusively from bankruptcy law and necessary to resolve claims against the estate. Accordingly, and contrary to what most scholars have suggested, preference proceedings fit comfortably within the jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts, even after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Stern.
在最高法院对斯特恩诉马歇尔案(Stern v. Marshall)做出裁决之后,对于哪些其他诉讼程序可能在宪法上属于破产法院的核心管辖权,人们普遍存在不确定性。最高法院的判例一直对非第三条法院的宪法限制含糊其辞,但法院确定了一般规则的“公共权利例外”,即司法权只能由终身任期和薪金保护的法官行使。这一公共权利例外尚未明确扩展到破产程序,但法院的推理强烈表明,受托人避免偏好的动议将属于公共权利例外,因为这是一项完全源于破产法的程序,是解决对遗产索赔的必要条件。因此,与大多数学者的建议相反,即使在最高法院对斯特恩案作出裁决之后,优先程序也很适合破产法院的管辖范围。