The High Court Report

Oral Argument: United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC | Case No. 22-1238 | Date Argued: 1/9/24 | Date Decided: 6/14/24


Listen Later

Oral Argument: United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC | Case No. 22-1238 | Date Argued: 1/9/24 | Date Decided: 6/14/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

Section 1004(a) of the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017, Pub. L. No.115-72, Div. B, 131 Stat. 1232 (28 U.S.C. 1930(a)(6)(B) (2018)), amended the schedule of quarterly fees payable to the United States Trustee in certain pending bankruptcy cases. In Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), this Court held that that provision contravened Congress's constitutional authority to "establish * * * uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies," U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, Cl. 4, because it was initially applied only in the 88 federal judicial districts that have United States Trustees but not in the 6 districts that have Bankruptcy Administrators. This Court left open the question of "the appropriate remedy" for the violation. Siegel, 142 S. Ct. at 1783.

Question Presented: Whether the appropriate remedy for the constitutional uniformity violation found by this Court in Siegel, supra, is to require the United States Trustee to grant retrospective refunds of the increased fees paid by debtors in United States Trustee districts during the period of disuniformity, or is instead either to deem sufficient the prospective remedy adopted by Congress or to require the collection of additional fees from a much smaller number of debtors in Bankruptcy Administrator districts.

Holding: Prospective parity (i.e., requiring equal fees for otherwise identical Chapter 11 debtors going forward) is the appropriate remedy for the short-lived and small disparity created by the fee statute held unconstitutional in Siegel v. Fitzgerald.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3. "Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Barrett joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

  • For Petitioner: Masha G. Hansford, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
  • For Respondents: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex.

...more
View all episodesView all episodes
Download on the App Store

The High Court ReportBy SCOTUS Oral Arguments

  • 4.3
  • 4.3
  • 4.3
  • 4.3
  • 4.3

4.3

6 ratings


More shows like The High Court Report

View all
The NPR Politics Podcast by NPR

The NPR Politics Podcast

25,875 Listeners

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts by Slate Podcasts

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts

3,533 Listeners

Bloomberg Law by Bloomberg

Bloomberg Law

372 Listeners

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke by The Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke

695 Listeners

We the People by National Constitution Center

We the People

1,118 Listeners

The Fifth Column by Kmele Foster, Michael Moynihan, and Matt Welch

The Fifth Column

2,888 Listeners

The Lawfare Podcast by The Lawfare Institute

The Lawfare Podcast

6,296 Listeners

The Daily by The New York Times

The Daily

112,617 Listeners

Stay Tuned with Preet by Preet Bharara

Stay Tuned with Preet

32,371 Listeners

Today, Explained by Vox

Today, Explained

10,240 Listeners

Interesting Times with Ross Douthat by New York Times Opinion

Interesting Times with Ross Douthat

7,071 Listeners

Strict Scrutiny by Crooked Media

Strict Scrutiny

5,776 Listeners

Advisory Opinions by The Dispatch

Advisory Opinions

3,882 Listeners

The Ezra Klein Show by New York Times Opinion

The Ezra Klein Show

16,081 Listeners

Divided Argument by Will Baude, Dan Epps

Divided Argument

738 Listeners