About jurisdictional limits
The jurisdictional grant in 28 U.S.C. section 1334 is broad - extending to all civil proceedings arising under title 11, arising in a case under title 11, or related to a case under title 11. But that grant does not mean the bankruptcy court must (or even may) reach every dispute it could otherwise hear. Five separate doctrines operate as limits, each grounded in a different constitutional or prudential source.
First, the constitutional limit of Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), prohibits a bankruptcy judge from entering a final judgment on a state-law cause of action that would not necessarily be resolved in the claims-allowance process. Second, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal-court review of state-court judgments where the federal plaintiff seeks to undo the state-court loss. Third, Younger abstention bars federal interference with ongoing state proceedings that implicate important state interests. Fourth, Burford abstention bars federal-court interference with complex state administrative regimes where federal review would be disruptive. Fifth, the bankruptcy-specific abstention provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 1334(c) - mandatory abstention under section 1334(c)(2) and permissive abstention under section 1334(c)(1) - operate within the bankruptcy framework itself.
The deep-dives below treat each doctrine in turn, surveying the prevailing tests, the leading Supreme Court and circuit decisions, and the practical considerations that determine when each doctrine is properly invoked in a bankruptcy setting.
Doctrine-by-doctrine deep-dives
- Stern v. Marshall - Constitutional LimitsThe Supreme Court's holding that bankruptcy judges cannot constitutionally enter final judgment on certain state-law counterclaims, the Wellness consent-waiver exception, and the remand-to-report-and-recommendation workaround.
- Rooker-Feldman DoctrineThe bar on federal-court review of state-court judgments under Rooker and Feldman, the Exxon Mobil v. Saudi Basic narrowing of the doctrine, and its application in bankruptcy where the debtor seeks to relitigate state-court rulings.
- Younger AbstentionThe doctrine of Younger v. Harris requiring federal-court abstention from interference with ongoing state criminal, civil enforcement, and certain civil judicial proceedings implicating important state interests.
- Burford AbstentionThe doctrine of Burford v. Sun Oil Co. counseling federal-court abstention where adjudication would disrupt state efforts to establish a coherent policy through complex administrative regimes.
- Section 1334 AbstentionMandatory abstention under 28 U.S.C. section 1334(c)(2) for non-core, related-to state-law claims with an available state forum, and the discretionary permissive abstention of section 1334(c)(1).