The United States Supreme Court correctly recognized in the 2004 Hood and 2006 Katz cases that the fundamental nature of bankruptcy cases and proceedings is distinct from litigation of statutes enacted under the Commerce Clause or other sections of Article I of the Constitution, in a way that is critical to sovereign immunity analysis. Unlike the laws at issue in the Seminole Tribe and other non-bankruptcy sovereign immunity cases before Hood and Katz, the substantive provisions of bankruptcy statutes are not regulatory laws, and do not apply to the populace at large or mandate or proscribe any action in the course of everyday affairs. Bankruptcy laws only apply in conjunction with bankruptcy cases adjudicating the status of the bankrupt debtor. Effectively, the federal government supplies the forum and standards for resolution of private debt matters. Unlike federal regulatory statutes that are enforceable by federal authorities, bankruptcy discharges, the automatic stay, preference actions and the like are enforceable only by debtors and creditors, and only in the context of specific bankruptcy cases, not by United States Attorneys or federal agencies in federal or state court suits. It is only private parties who can enforce such bankruptcy law provisions through bankruptcy court proceedings in specific debtors' bankruptcy cases.
View entire article in PDF format here.