This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Kent L. Richland (Petitioner), according to Kent L. Richland (Petitioner), the case concerns whether a federal bankruptcy court can exercise jurisdiction over a tort claim that is the primary source of payment to creditors, given the Ninth Circuit’s broad interpretation of the probate exception.
The parties dispute the scope of the probate exception, with the petitioner arguing the exception should not bar the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction, and the respondent asserting the exception prevents federal courts from interfering with probate matters.
According to United States (amicus curiae), according to United States (amicus curiae), the probate exception is limited to wills and does not extend to inter vivos trusts.
Background and question before the Court
What each side argues
Petitioner (Vickie Lynn Marshall)
According to Kent L. Richland (Petitioner), according to Kent L. Richland (Petitioner), the Ninth Circuit concluded that the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction over the chief assets of the estate because of a broad probate exception.
According to Kent L. Richland (Petitioner), according to Kent L. Richland (Petitioner), the case is an outlier and far from any probate exception.
Respondent (E. Pierce Marshall)
According to Respondent, the probate exception exists to prevent a Federal court from enjoining ongoing probate proceedings, invalidating the estate plan, reallocating assets, or creating a novel cause of action.
According to Respondent, under Texas law, the probate court alone decides the validity of an estate plan, and a claimant must prove invalidity under Texas law.
Amicus Curiae (United States)
According to United States (amicus curiae), according to United States (amicus curiae), the probate exception is a will‑specific rule and does not apply to inter vivos trusts.
According to United States (amicus curiae), according to United States (amicus curiae), the exception is narrow and does not bar decisions on rights to the estate, will construction, or testator intent.
According to United States, the Court should clarify the limit of the probate exception.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Stevens asked whether the dicta in the Markham case accurately described prior history.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg noted vast confusion in lower courts about the extent of the probate exception.
Justice Breyer asked whether Texas law requires a particular proof of the estate plan’s validity.
Justice Souter asked whether Texas law treats a living trust with the same formalities as a will.
Justice Breyer also asked whether the key documents were included in the boxes presented.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg highlighted that lower courts are confused about the scope of the probate exception, indicating the case’s potential to clarify the law.
According to Kent L. Richland (Petitioner), petitioner argues that the case concerns whether a bankruptcy court can exercise jurisdiction over a tort claim that is the primary source of payment to creditors, which could affect how creditors pursue claims against estate assets.
Respondent contends that the probate exception is intended to prevent federal courts from interfering with ongoing probate proceedings, underscoring the stakes of the Court’s decision.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 507018666e60b1b45082-r1-f7654adc7345c2cc.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.