Consent, Coercion, and Bankruptcy Administration
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2016
Abstract
This essay analyzes the transformation of the role of U.S. bankruptcy courts since Stern v. Marshall.
The Supreme Court’s 1982 plurality decision in Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. remains one of the most controversial bankruptcy decisions in the Court’s history. Northern Pipeline limited Article I bankruptcy courts’ authority to hear and decide disputes that fall within the “core” of the bankruptcy power, but declined to provide much guidance concerning the parameters of these bankruptcy-specific “public rights.” Scholars and practitioners who expected the Court to abandon Northern Pipeline, however, were in for a rude awakening when the Court issued its decision in Stern v. Marshall in 2011. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts not only reaffirmed the constitutional limits of the Article I bankruptcy courts as outlined in Northern Pipeline, but also indicated that litigant consent is insufficient to overcome these limits.
Publication Title
Journal of Business & Technology Law
First Page
25
Last Page
57
Recommended Citation
S. T. Brown,
Consent, Coercion, and Bankruptcy Administration,
11
J. Bus. & Tech. L.
25
(2016).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/journal_articles/72
Comments
This record does not contain full text. If available, click on the "DOI" link to see where the full text of the item is located. If you are a UB student, or faculty or staff member and unable to access the full text at the link, try searching for the item in Everything Search (https://search.lib.buffalo.edu/discovery/search?vid=01SUNY_BUF:everything). If not available, request via Delivery+ (https://library.buffalo.edu/delivery/).