Stern v. Marshall
Stern v. Marshall | |
---|---|
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito |
Concurrence | Scalia |
Dissent | Breyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
Laws applied | |
28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1334, 28 U.S.C. § 157 |
Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), was a
Background
Playboy Playmate and celebrity Anna Nicole Smith married wealthy 89-year-old oil magnate J. Howard Marshall, and he died 14 months later, in 1995. When it appeared she had been excluded from his estate, she sued in Texas state probate court, sparking a long and acrimonious series of litigations between herself and Marshall's son E. Pierce Marshall. At one point, a federal district court determined that Smith was owed $88 million from the estate, while the state probate court determined that she was not owed any such substantial sum. The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the federal district court had jurisdiction to rule on the award in Marshall v. Marshall (2006).
The case was sent back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to decide other remaining issues. On March 19, 2010, the same three-judge panel found in favor of E. Pierce Marshall holding that the bankruptcy court did not have the authority to decide the case, and, because the California federal district court should not have reviewed matters previously decided in the Texas probate court, the $88 million judgment for Smith was void.[1][2] Following the 9th Circuit's decision, lawyers for the estate of Anna Nicole Smith requested the appeal be heard before the entire circuit. However, on May 5, 2010, that request was denied.[3] On September 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court again agreed to hear the case.[4]
Article III, § 1 of the Constitution vests "[t]he judicial power of the United States" in life-tenured and salary-protected judges, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Non-Article III bankruptcy judges may not exercise the general judicial power of the United States and therefore may not finally resolve controversies that are not within the core Article I bankruptcy power Congress relied upon in creating the current system of bankruptcy jurisdiction. In
The
Questions presented
- Whether the Ninth Circuit opinion, which renders §157(b)(2)(C) surplusage[clarification needed] in light of §157(b)(2)(B), contravenes Congress's intent in enacting §157(b)(2)(C).
- Whether Congress may, under Articles I and III, constitutionally authorize core jurisdiction over debtors' compulsory counterclaims to proofs of claim.
- Whether the Ninth Circuit misapplied Marathon and Katchenand contravened the Court's post-Marathon precedent, creating a circuit split in the process, by holding that Congress cannot constitutionally authorize non-Article III bankruptcy judges to enter final judgment on all compulsory counterclaims to proofs of claim.
Opinion of the Court
On June 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case (now styled Stern v. Marshall, no. 10-179). The majority of the Court held Congress cannot constitutionally authorize non-Article III bankruptcy judges to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor’s proof of claim. The four dissenting judges were of the opinion that such broad powers are necessary to implement legislative intent and authority under Article I and concerns about the reduced efficiency of the bankruptcy courts.
This decision effectively ended the case and let stand the decision that Smith's estate was not entitled to the money that had previously been awarded to her.
Broader context
The length of the proceedings led the Chief Justice to compare it to the infamous fictional lawsuit
See also
References
- ^ "Marshall v. Marshall 9th Circuit Second Opinion on Remand" (PDF). March 19, 2010.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help) - ^ In re Marshall, 600 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2010).
- ^ "Court won't reconsider Anna Nicole Smith ruling". Boston.com. May 6, 2010. Retrieved August 11, 2010.
- ^ "US top court to hear Anna Nicole Smith fortune case". WNCF-TV News. AFP. September 28, 2010. Archived from the original on July 17, 2011. Retrieved September 29, 2010.
- ^ "The Supreme Court's Holding in Stern v. Marshall". Lexis. July 18, 2011.
- ^ "Judge in Decades Old Anna Nicole Smith Case Announces He's Had Enough". Forbes.
- ^ "Inside Anna Nicole Smith's Battle over Her Billionaire Husband's Estate". Forbes.
External links
- Text of Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011) is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
- "Marshall v. Marshall 9th Circuit Second Oral Argument on Remand". www.ca9.uscourts.gov. June 2009.
- "Marshall v. Marshall 600 F. 3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2010)" (PDF). www.ca9.uscourts.gov. March 2010.
- "Stern v. Marshall Docket". www.supremecourt.gov. August 2010.
- "Marshall v. Marshall Questions Presented" (PDF). www.supremecourt.gov. August 2010.
- "Marshall v. Marshall Oral Argument Transcript" (PDF). www.supremecourt.gov. 564. January 2011.
- "Marshall v. Marshall Case History". www.factweb.net. Archived from the original on August 3, 2012. Retrieved December 28, 2011.
- "Stern v. Marshall Briefs (All)". SCOTUSblog. August 2010.
- "Case Summary and Analysis" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. August 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 15, 2013. Retrieved January 30, 2012.
- Supreme Court Case 10-179