5 ms·

How is there such a big divide in the court on this? Is the law really this unclear on the matter?

throwup238 2y ago
IANAL but most contested Supreme Court decisions I've read (going all the way back to AP gov class) sounded like they could have reasonably been decided either way depending on who had control over the court. The law is ambiguous and complex enough that there's just so many logical ways to approach a decision and little in the way of prioritizing or disambiguating them. Whatever their bias, judges have lots of ways of reasoning themselves to their predetermined outcome. This is true up and down the courts but most judges are at least somewhat worried about their reputation and their record with appeals courts, which at least mitigates their biases but the SCOTUS is free to do whatever it wants. As much as each side likes to bloviate about originalism and activist judges, SCOTUS often decides at the whims of ideology and personal bias because the law gives them lots of room.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 2y ago
Bankruptcy is a unique creature. It's created directly in the Constitution as a federal system. Bankruptcy is inherently "equitable," which means that judicial decisions are guided by case-by-case considerations of fairness rather than strict legal rules. Bankruptcy courts have wide latitude and discretion to basically do what makes sense in each context. Here, the majority overturned something the bankrutpcy code approved, because, in its view, the remedy of a non-consensual third-party release conflicted with the structure of the Bankruptcy Code. The dissent disagreed, pointing out there were no express prohibitions on the relief the bankruptcy court had granted, and explaining that, in their view, the bankruptcy court should have been given discretion to authorize such a release if ultimately it would make the creditors better off. Basically the majority was focused on the structure of the Code, while the dissent was focused on the practical fact that the creditors would probably get more money from the Sacklers this way than if they had pursued direct lawsuits against them.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  > the creditors Thanks, that word helps clarify my major problem with handling this as a bankruptcy case. I don't see the destroyed lives as an issue of creditors, I see them as victims. Calling off the corporations coming after an individual for unpaid debt is a whole different issue than barring individuals from going after a corporation for actual injuries.
jakewins 2y ago
The opinion and dissent are actually relatively approachable and lay out exactly what the disagreement is about: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124_8nk0.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124_8nk0.pdf It seems to come down to whether the sentence "[A chapter 11 bankruptcy plan may] include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title" means "A plan can contain anything anyone can imagine as reasonable as long as it isn't expressly forbidden" or "A plan can contain other types of provisions that follow the same general theme as the concrete list given just before this sentence". The Sacklers argued that the law says they can take away other peoples rights to sue them, since the law says these bankruptcy plans can include "anything", and the majority opinion of SCOTUS was that that's not the right way to read the law.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  It also seems to turn whether the Sacklers seek a third-party “release,” which is precedented, or “discharge,” which is not. (The Court also assumes Purdue’s indemnification of the Sacklers will not hold, which would allow the Sacklers to drain Purdue as they fight the various claims against them.) Interestingly, the argument for is textual. The argument against is pragmatic. (Both argue history, in my opinion, unconvincingly. They’re talking past each other on release vs discharge, a delineation neither side bothers to delve into.) The dividing line defies easy summary. (Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Jackson concurring, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting.)
  - erichocean 2y ago
    > the argument for is textual And here's the language: "any other appropriate provision" The Sacklers: the law says we can take away other people's rights to sue us as part of a bankruptcy settlement. SC: Yeah, no, the text doesn't say that.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > the law says we can take away other people's rights to sue us as part of a bankruptcy settlement As the dissent notes, third-party releases are part of the law. The turn is on whether the Sacklers are having third-party liabilities discharged versus released. The solution may be in re-drafting the Plan so it’s more clearly a release. That might mean the Sacklers can be sued for fraud, but not other things.
michaelt 2y ago
The law surrounding Chapter 11 reorganisation plans only covers the relationships and responsibilities between debtors and creditors. It doesn't say anything about third parties. But it does include a term saying a plan "may" also "include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title" - subject to the approval of a judge. Applying the broadest possible interpretation of this catch-all wording would produce absurd results - a bankruptcy plan would be more powerful than the constitution itself. So courts have to figure out just how broad an interpretation to apply.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > law surrounding Chapter 11 reorganisation plans only covers the relationships and responsibilities between debtors and creditors. It doesn't say anything about third parties Yes it does. It covers third-party releases—there is ample precedent for that. The Court held this isn’t a release, but a discharge. (Idk.)
legitster 2y ago
Chapter 11 bankruptcy law includes a "catchall" provision that “may” also “include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title.” Historically bankruptcy courts have wide discretion to make any "appropriate" provisions, and this document is an argument about what the limits of appropriate include.
rootusrootus 2y ago
What really stuck out to me was how soft the opinions were. Especially the dissent. Rather than dry legal reasoning, it was argued much like a politician would. Maybe this happens fairly often, but usually when I read the actual decision from SCOTUS is is very specific and sober, even if I disagree with the conclusion.

IANAL but most contested Supreme Court decisions I've read (going all the way back to AP gov class) sounded like they could have reasonably been decided either way depending on who had control over the court. The law is ambiguous and complex enough that there's just so many logical ways to approach a decision and little in the way of prioritizing or disambiguating them. Whatever their bias, judges have lots of ways of reasoning themselves to their predetermined outcome. This is true up and down the courts but most judges are at least somewhat worried about their reputation and their record with appeals courts, which at least mitigates their biases but the SCOTUS is free to do whatever it wants. As much as each side likes to bloviate about originalism and activist judges, SCOTUS often decides at the whims of ideology and personal bias because the law gives them lots of room.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 2y ago

Bankruptcy is a unique creature. It's created directly in the Constitution as a federal system. Bankruptcy is inherently "equitable," which means that judicial decisions are guided by case-by-case considerations of fairness rather than strict legal rules. Bankruptcy courts have wide latitude and discretion to basically do what makes sense in each context. Here, the majority overturned something the bankrutpcy code approved, because, in its view, the remedy of a non-consensual third-party release conflicted with the structure of the Bankruptcy Code. The dissent disagreed, pointing out there were no express prohibitions on the relief the bankruptcy court had granted, and explaining that, in their view, the bankruptcy court should have been given discretion to authorize such a release if ultimately it would make the creditors better off. Basically the majority was focused on the structure of the Code, while the dissent was focused on the practical fact that the creditors would probably get more money from the Sacklers this way than if they had pursued direct lawsuits against them.

rootusrootus 2y ago
> the creditors Thanks, that word helps clarify my major problem with handling this as a bankruptcy case. I don't see the destroyed lives as an issue of creditors, I see them as victims. Calling off the corporations coming after an individual for unpaid debt is a whole different issue than barring individuals from going after a corporation for actual injuries.

jakewins 2y ago

The opinion and dissent are actually relatively approachable and lay out exactly what the disagreement is about: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124_8nk0.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-124_8nk0.pdf It seems to come down to whether the sentence "[A chapter 11 bankruptcy plan may] include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title" means "A plan can contain anything anyone can imagine as reasonable as long as it isn't expressly forbidden" or "A plan can contain other types of provisions that follow the same general theme as the concrete list given just before this sentence". The Sacklers argued that the law says they can take away other peoples rights to sue them, since the law says these bankruptcy plans can include "anything", and the majority opinion of SCOTUS was that that's not the right way to read the law.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
It also seems to turn whether the Sacklers seek a third-party “release,” which is precedented, or “discharge,” which is not. (The Court also assumes Purdue’s indemnification of the Sacklers will not hold, which would allow the Sacklers to drain Purdue as they fight the various claims against them.) Interestingly, the argument for is textual. The argument against is pragmatic. (Both argue history, in my opinion, unconvincingly. They’re talking past each other on release vs discharge, a delineation neither side bothers to delve into.) The dividing line defies easy summary. (Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Jackson concurring, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting.)
- erichocean 2y ago
  > the argument for is textual And here's the language: "any other appropriate provision" The Sacklers: the law says we can take away other people's rights to sue us as part of a bankruptcy settlement. SC: Yeah, no, the text doesn't say that.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > the law says we can take away other people's rights to sue us as part of a bankruptcy settlement As the dissent notes, third-party releases are part of the law. The turn is on whether the Sacklers are having third-party liabilities discharged versus released. The solution may be in re-drafting the Plan so it’s more clearly a release. That might mean the Sacklers can be sued for fraud, but not other things.

michaelt 2y ago

The law surrounding Chapter 11 reorganisation plans only covers the relationships and responsibilities between debtors and creditors. It doesn't say anything about third parties. But it does include a term saying a plan "may" also "include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title" - subject to the approval of a judge. Applying the broadest possible interpretation of this catch-all wording would produce absurd results - a bankruptcy plan would be more powerful than the constitution itself. So courts have to figure out just how broad an interpretation to apply.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> law surrounding Chapter 11 reorganisation plans only covers the relationships and responsibilities between debtors and creditors. It doesn't say anything about third parties Yes it does. It covers third-party releases—there is ample precedent for that. The Court held this isn’t a release, but a discharge. (Idk.)

legitster 2y ago

Chapter 11 bankruptcy law includes a "catchall" provision that “may” also “include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title.” Historically bankruptcy courts have wide discretion to make any "appropriate" provisions, and this document is an argument about what the limits of appropriate include.

rootusrootus 2y ago

What really stuck out to me was how soft the opinions were. Especially the dissent. Rather than dry legal reasoning, it was argued much like a politician would. Maybe this happens fairly often, but usually when I read the actual decision from SCOTUS is is very specific and sober, even if I disagree with the conclusion.