| Revision as of 00:19, 14 December 2024 editLethargilistic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,829 edits ←Created page with '{{subst:SCOTUS-case|United States v. Bekins|304|27|April 25|1938|The federal government's bankruptcy powers can extend to state agencies without violating federalism principles.}}' | Revision as of 00:31, 14 December 2024 edit undoLethargilistic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,829 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| |DecideDate=April 25 | |DecideDate=April 25 | ||
| |DecideYear=1938 | |DecideYear=1938 | ||
| |FullName=United States v. Bekins et al., Trustees, et al.; Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District v. Bekins et al., Trustees, et al. | |||
| |FullName= | |||
| |USVol=304 | |USVol=304 | ||
| |USPage=27 | |USPage=27 | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| |Subsequent= | |Subsequent= | ||
| |Holding=The federal government's bankruptcy powers can extend to state agencies without violating federalism principles. | |Holding=The federal government's bankruptcy powers can extend to state agencies without violating federalism principles. | ||
| |Majority= | |Majority=Hughes | ||
| |JoinMajority= | |JoinMajority= | ||
| ⚫ | |Dissent=McReynolds | ||
| |Concurrence= | |||
| ⚫ | |JoinDissent=Butler | ||
| |JoinConcurrence= | |||
| ⚫ | |NotParticipating=Cardozo | ||
| |Concurrence2= | |||
| |JoinConcurrence2= | |||
| |Concurrence/Dissent= | |||
| |JoinConcurrence/Dissent= | |||
| ⚫ | |Dissent= | ||
| ⚫ | |JoinDissent= | ||
| |Dissent2= | |||
| |JoinDissent2= | |||
| |PerCuriam= | |||
| ⚫ | |NotParticipating= | ||
| |LawsApplied= | |LawsApplied= | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| '''''United States v. Bekins''''', {{ussc|volume=304|page=27|year=1938|el=no}}, was a ] case in which the court held that the federal government's bankruptcy powers can extend to state agencies without violating federalism principles.<ref name="case">{{ussc|name=United States v. Bekins|volume=304|page=27|year=1938}}.</ref> | '''''United States v. Bekins''''', {{ussc|volume=304|page=27|year=1938|el=no}}, was a ] case in which the court held that the federal government's bankruptcy powers can extend to state agencies without violating federalism principles.<ref name="case">{{ussc|name=United States v. Bekins|volume=304|page=27|year=1938}}.</ref><ref name="Lieberman1999">{{Cite book |last=Lieberman |first=Jethro K. |title=A Practical Companion to the Constitution |year=1999 |pages=65|chapter=Bankruptcy}}</ref><ref name="USCourts_Chapter9>{{Cite web |title=Chapter 9 - Bankruptcy Basics |url=https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-9-bankruptcy-basics |access-date=2024-12-13 |website=United States Courts |language=en}}</ref> | ||
| ==Significance== | |||
| Two year earlier, the Court invalidated the Municipal Bankruptcy Act of 1934 in '']'', emphasizing concerns over federalism. In response, Congress passed a revised Municipal Bankruptcy Act in 1936 that emphasized the autonomy of states in the bankruptcy process. ''Bekins'' upheld the revised statute. ''Bekins'' did not explicitly overrule ''Ashton''; instead, it said the statute's respect for federalism was constitutionally adequate.<ref name="case"/> | |||
| In dissent, McReynolds (who wrote ''Ashton'') said that ''Ashton'' ought to have applied in this case as well.<ref name="case"/> | |||
| == References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 00:31, 14 December 2024
1938 United States Supreme Court case| United States v. Bekins | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Decided April 25, 1938 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Bekins et al., Trustees, et al.; Lindsay-Strathmore Irrigation District v. Bekins et al., Trustees, et al. |
| Citations | 304 U.S. 27 (more) |
| Holding | |
| The federal government's bankruptcy powers can extend to state agencies without violating federalism principles. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Hughes |
| Dissent | McReynolds, joined by Butler |
| Cardozo took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
United States v. Bekins, 304 U.S. 27 (1938), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the federal government's bankruptcy powers can extend to state agencies without violating federalism principles.
Significance
Two year earlier, the Court invalidated the Municipal Bankruptcy Act of 1934 in Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement District No. 1, emphasizing concerns over federalism. In response, Congress passed a revised Municipal Bankruptcy Act in 1936 that emphasized the autonomy of states in the bankruptcy process. Bekins upheld the revised statute. Bekins did not explicitly overrule Ashton; instead, it said the statute's respect for federalism was constitutionally adequate.
In dissent, McReynolds (who wrote Ashton) said that Ashton ought to have applied in this case as well.
References
- ^ United States v. Bekins, 304 U.S. 27 (1938).
- Lieberman, Jethro K. (1999). "Bankruptcy". A Practical Companion to the Constitution. p. 65.
- "Chapter 9 - Bankruptcy Basics". United States Courts. Retrieved 2024-12-13.
External links
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |