Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison

Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, 573 U.S. 25 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under Stern v. Marshall, when a bankruptcy court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a proceeding, the bankruptcy court may still hear the case and issue proposed findings to be reviewed de novo by a federal district court.

Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 9, 2014
Full case name	Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison
Citations	573 U.S. 25 (more)
Holding
Under Stern v. Marshall, when a bankruptcy court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a proceeding, the bankruptcy court may still hear the case and issue proposed findings to be reviewed de novo by a federal district court.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinion
Majority	Thomas, joined by unanimous

Significance

Because bankruptcy courts in the United States are organized as Article I tribunals rather than as Article III courts, they are not permitted to exercise the judicial power of the United States. Stern v. Marshall identified so-called "Stern claims" that required exercising the judicial power and were therefore beyond the authority of bankruptcy courts. Stern was very disruptive in the sense that, technically, it was not precisely clear what bankruptcy courts could and could not hear for lack of jurisdiction. This case established that bankruptcy courts could continue to hear their cases as before, so long as the Stern claims were later heard by an Article III court with appropriate jurisdiction.

External links

• Text of Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, 573 U.S. 25 (2014) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia