United States v. Bekins
| United States v. Bekins | |
|---|---|
 | |
| 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, joined by Brandeis, Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed |
| Dissent | McReynolds, joined by Butler |
| Cardozo took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| Bankruptcy Clause | |
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.[1][2][3]
Significance
[edit]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.[1]
In dissent, Justice McReynolds (who wrote Ashton) said that Ashton ought to have applied in this case as well.[1]
References
[edit]External links
[edit]
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |