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 alleges he was damaged because the respondent falsely accused him of cheating her out of money that the late husband intended to give her.
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice Sotomayor, what is the authority for a bankruptcy court to adjudicate proof of claims without violating Article III?
According to Justice Scalia, can the Federal Government require a party to pursue a claim in a non‑Article III tribunal?
According to Justice Ginsburg, will the bankruptcy court’s handling of a tort claim be futile under 11 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5)?
What each side argues
Petitioner (Howard K. Stern, Executor of the Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall)
According to Kent L. Richland, the bankruptcy court is constitutionally authorized to decide the entire dispute.
According to Respondent, the respondent has not cited any contrary authority from this Court.
According to Mr. Englert, marathon (the respondent) rejects many of the premises of the Court’s questions, starting with the premise that the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction.
Respondent (Elaine T. Marshall, Executrix of the Estate of E. Pierce Marshall)
According to Respondent, there are three possible grounds for affirmance of the Ninth Circuit: one constitutional and two statutory, plus the 11 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) ground.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts: "We'll now hear argument in Case 10-179, Stern v. Marshall."
Justice Sotomayor: "What's the authority at all for a bankruptcy court to adjudicate proof of claims, without violating Article III?"
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia: "A State can do that, but can the Federal Government make it the price that you pay for -- for going into a non-Article III tribunal?"
Justice Ginsburg: "Will you include in that this 157(b)(5), because this whole thing would be a futile exercise if that tort claim comes -- comes out of the bankruptcy judge's -"
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer: "In which case?"
According to Justice Breyer, justice Breyer: "If -- if we were to decide this case, and suppose we decide every other question and suppose you lost, then wouldn't we send it back for you -- if you're right on that, for the Ninth Circuit to decide about that as an independent basis for no jurisdiction?"
- [1] 4a6825c501b034843fc1-r1-86820512e1805b01.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 4a6825c501b034843fc1-r1-86820512e1805b01.pdf, p. 4
- [3] 4a6825c501b034843fc1-r1-86820512e1805b01.pdf, p. 20
- [4] 4a6825c501b034843fc1-r1-86820512e1805b01.pdf, p. 23
- [5] 4a6825c501b034843fc1-r1-86820512e1805b01.pdf, p. 38
- [6] 4a6825c501b034843fc1-r1-86820512e1805b01.pdf, p. 47
What the Court decided
Why it matters
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.
- 4a6825c501b034843fc1-r1-86820512e1805b01.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 24, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.