Central Virginia Community College v. Katz
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 11:53:29 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Central Virginia Community College v. Katz
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: The decision was...
#1
Sound
 
#2
Unsound
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 3

Author Topic: Central Virginia Community College v. Katz  (Read 1487 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 27, 2006, 06:51:49 PM »

Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, ___ U.S. ___ (2006)

The Bankruptcy Clause, Art. I, §8, cl. 4, empowers Congress to establish "uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States." In Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation v. Hood, 541 U. S. 440, this Court, without reaching the question whether the Clause gives Congress the authority to abrogate States' immunity from private suits, see id., at 443, upheld the application of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. §101 et seq., to proceedings initiated by a debtor against a state agency to determine the dischargeability of a student loan debt, see 541 U. S., at 451. In this case, a proceeding commenced by respondent Bankruptcy Trustee under §§547(b) and 550(a) to avoid and recover alleged preferential transfers by the debtor to petitioner state agencies, the agencies claim that the proceeding is barred by sovereign immunity. The Bankruptcy Court denied petitioners' motions to dismiss on that ground, and the District Court and the Sixth Circuit affirmed based on the Circuit's prior determination that Congress has abrogated the States' sovereign immunity in bankruptcy proceedings.

Held: A bankruptcy trustee's proceeding to set aside the debtor's preferential transfers to state agencies is not barred by sovereign immunity.

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Kennedy, JJ., joined.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2006, 06:56:25 PM »

O'Connor is a complete joke. This is absolutely inconsistent with precedents she signed onto.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2006, 09:01:19 PM »

While I feel that the States all too often abuse thier sovereign immunity, as is the case here, I agree with Thomas that it is overbroad to find that it does not exist in bankruptcy cases.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2006, 08:48:31 AM »

I expressed my views on this case here. If we apply the Court's precedents consistently, nothing in Article I allows Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2006, 01:13:15 PM »

The good news is that Roberts came down on the side of federalism.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 14 queries.