Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison
Holding
When, under the reasoning of Stern v. Marshall, the Constitution does not permit a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on a bankruptcy-related claim, the relevant statute nevertheless permits a bankruptcy court to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to be reviewed de novo by the district court.
Judgment
Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Clarence Thomas on Jun 9, 2014.
Issue: (1) Whether Article III permits the exercise of the judicial power of the United States by bankruptcy courts on the basis of litigant consent, and, if so, whether “implied consent” based on a litigant”s conduct, where the statutory scheme provides the litigant no notice that its consent is required, is sufficient to satisfy Article III; and (2) whether a bankruptcy judge may submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for de novo review by a district court in a “core” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 157(b).
Recommended Citation: Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/executive-benefits-insurance-agency-v-arkison/