|
United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434 (1973)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434 (1973)
United States v. Kras No. 71-749 Argued October 18, 1972 Decided January 10, 1973 409 U.S. 434
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
Appellee, an indigent who filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy, sought discharge without payment of the fees, aggregating no more than $50, that are a precondition to discharge in such a proceeding. The District Court, relying primarily on Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (where the Court held that a State could not consistently with due process and equal protection requirements, deny access to divorce courts to indigents unable to pay filing and other fees), held the bankruptcy fee provisions, as applied to appellee, an unconstitutional denial of Fifth Amendment rights of due process, including equal protection.
Held: This case is not controlled by Boddie, supra. For here, access to courts is not the only conceivable relief available to bankrupts; the filing-fee requirement does not deny an indigent the equal protection of the laws, since there is no constitutional right to obtain a discharge of one’s debts in bankruptcy; the right to a discharge in bankruptcy is not a "fundamental" right demanding a compelling governmental interest as a precondition to regulation; and there is a rational basis for the fee requirement. Pp. 443-450.
331 F.Supp. 1207, reversed.
BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 450. STEWART, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 451. DOUGLAS and BRENNAN, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 457. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 458.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434 (1973) in 409 U.S. 434 409 U.S. 435. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HDHVVDP8YXNCIGF.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434 (1973), in 409 U.S. 434, page 409 U.S. 435. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HDHVVDP8YXNCIGF.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434 (1973). cited in 1973, 409 U.S. 434, pp.409 U.S. 435. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=HDHVVDP8YXNCIGF.
|