| Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
(No. 81-150)
___ |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Syllabus
| Opinion
[ Brennan ] | Concurrence
[ Rehnquist ] | Dissent
[ Burger ] | Opinion
[ White ] |
| HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version | HTML version
PDF version |
Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, dissenting.
I join JUSTICE WHITE's dissenting opinion, but I write separately to emphasize that, notwithstanding the plurality opinion, the Court does not hold today that Congress' broad grant of jurisdiction to the new bankruptcy courts is generally inconsistent with Art. III of the Constitution. Rather, the Court's holding is limited to the proposition stated by JUSTICE REHNQUIST in his concurrence in the judgment -- that a "traditional" state common law action, not made subject to a federal rule of decision, and related only peripherally to an adjudication of bankruptcy under federal law, must, absent the consent of the litigants, be heard by an "Art. III court" if it is to be heard by any court or agency of the United States. This limited holding, of course, does not suggest that there is something inherently unconstitutional about the new bankruptcy courts; nor does it preclude such courts from adjudicating all but a relatively narrow category of claims "arising under" or "arising in or related to cases under" the Bankruptcy Act.
It will not be necessary for Congress, in order to meet the requirements of the Court's holding, to undertake a radical restructuring of the present system of bankruptcy adjudication. The problems arising from today's judgment can be resolved simply by providing that ancillary common law actions, such as the one involved in these cases, be routed to the United States district court of which the bankruptcy court is an adjunct.