Whether a Bankruptcy Judge's Appointment of a Special Master Would Violate Article III of the Constitution
Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel
1Opinion of the Court
(Slip Opinion) Whether a Bankruptcy Judge’s Appointment of a Special Master Would Violate Article III of the Constitution A bankruptcy court’s unilateral subdelegation of functions requiring an Article III judge’s “total control” violates Article III of the Constitution. Proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure authorizing bank- ruptcy judges to appoint special masters to perform functions involving constitutional- ly non-core claims would deprive Article III courts of the requisite “total control.” March 17, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ACTING DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Thomas v. ArnSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Mathews v. WeberSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- United States v. RaddatzSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Stern v. MarshallSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.