Abstract
This article addresses the meaning of the constitutional requirement of uniformity, employing as a practical focus the question of whether the Bankruptcy Administrator/United States Trustee dichotomy is constitutional. It also addresses the debates in the 102d and 103d Congresses over the constitutionality of proposed pilot Chapter 10.
I. Introduction: Uniformity and Proposed Chapter 10
II. Chapter 10 and Uniformity: The Banks Versus Senator Heflin ... A. The Banks' Position ... B. Senator Heflin's Position
III. Constitutional Provisions Requiring Uniformity ... A. The Limited Evidence of Original Intent ... B. The Constitutional Convention and the Role of the Federal Government: Regulation of the Various Interests of Creditors and Debtors
IV. Supreme Court Uniformity Clause Decisions ... A. Hanover National Bank v. Moyses: Geographical Uniformity and State Exemptions ... B. Perez v. Campbell: The Fresh Start, State Laws, and Uniformity ... C. The 3R Act Cases: The Flexibility Inherent in Geographic Uniformity ... D. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. Gibbons: Private Bankruptcy Laws and Uniformity ... E. United States v. Ptasynski: Tax Uniformity and Limitations on the Flexibility of Geographic Uniformity
V. The United States Trustee and the Bankruptcy Administrator Programs ... A. Executive Summary of Facts and Issues ... B. History of the United States Trustee Program ... C. The GAO Report ... D. St. Angelo v. Victoria Farms, Inc ... E. Trustees, Administrators, and the Requirement of Uniformity ... F. The United States Trustee Program Fails to Qualify As Uniform under Relevant Precedent ... G. Steps to Take to Avoid Constitutional Challenges
VI. Conclusion
Recommended Citation
Dan J. Schulman,
The Constitution, Interest Groups, and the Requirements of Uniformity: The United States Trustee and the Bankruptcy Administrator Programs,
74 Neb. L. Rev.
(1995)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol74/iss1/4