Siegel v. Fitzgerald
Case Overview
The Supreme Court held 9-0 that the CARES Act's temporary increase in bankruptcy trustee fees violated the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause because it imposed higher fees in 48 of 50 states while exempting Alabama and North Carolina, where a different trustee system operates, without a rational geographic reason.
The Facts
When Congress passed the CARES Act, it raised quarterly fees charged by U.S. Trustees in 48 states but excluded Alabama and North Carolina, which use a separate bankruptcy administrator system. Law firms in the affected states challenged the disparity as a violation of the Bankruptcy Clause's requirement of uniform laws on bankruptcy throughout the United States.
The Application
The fee increase imposed higher costs on debtors in 48 states while exempting debtors in Alabama and North Carolina, creating a geographic disparity that violated the uniformity requirement's mandate. Although the excluded states operated under a separate bankruptcy administrator system, the Court held this administrative distinction was not a rational bankruptcy-subject-matter justification for the geographic divide. The Court rejected the government's implicit reliance on administrative convenience, finding that the Bankruptcy Clause demands uniform rules throughout the nation unless geographic variations are grounded in the substance of bankruptcy law, not mere operational differences.
The Conclusion
**Unanimous ruling for Siegel.** Sotomayor wrote the majority. The CARES Act fee disparity was unconstitutional; Congress must enact uniform bankruptcy fee structures.
No circuit court data for this case.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support