Siegel v Fitzgerald
Issues
Does the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017, which increases filing fees for bankruptcy in all states except Alabama and North Carolina, violate the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause?
This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether Section 1930 of the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017, which increased filing fees in trustee districts but not in bankruptcy administrator districts, violates the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause. Petitioner Alfred H. Siegel argues that the disparity in fees is non-uniform because it applies to different geographic locations in the United States differently. As a result Siegel, contends that that the fee system is unconstitutional, and asks the Court to grant a full refund of the difference in fees. Respondent John P. Fitzgerald, III, counters that the disparity does not violate the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause, impacting trustee districts and administrator districts in a facially neutral way. The outcome of this case has heavy implications for the delegation of congressional power and the structure of bankruptcy courts.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
Whether the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act violates the uniformity requirement of the Constitution’s bankruptcy clause by increasing quarterly fees solely in districts under the U.S. Trustee program, not those under the Bankruptcy Administrator program.
In 1978, Congress established the Trustee program and Bankruptcy Administrator program. Siegel v Fitzgerald at 160. These programs were designed to handle United States bankruptcy proceedings.
Additional Resources
- Daniel Gill, Supreme Court to Decide if Bankruptcy Fee Hike Constitutional, Bloomberg Law, (January 10, 2022).