Vickie Lynn Marshall and E. Pierce Marshall are battling over the fortune of J. Howard Marshall II, is believed to be one of the richest people in Texas. The Marshalls' litigation has worked its way through state and federal courts in Louisiana, Texas, and California. Justices will decide whether Bankruptcy Court has statutory authority to issue final judgment on Vickie's counterclaim.

The Bankruptcy Court lacked the constitutional authority to enter judgment in Vickie Howard's case. Vickie was J. Howard's third wife and married him about a year before his death. He had bestowed on Vickie many monetary and other gifts during their courtship and marriage. But he did not include her in his will, and she sued for half of his fortune.

After J. Howard's death, Vickie filed a petition for bankruptcy in the Central District of California. Pierce filed a complaint in that bankruptcy proceeding, contending Vickie defamed him. Vickie responded to Pierce's initial complaint by filing a counterclaim for tortious interference. Bankruptcy Court issued a judgment on Vickie's counterclaim in her favor. Federal bankruptcy law does not guide how to tell which matters arise under Title 11 and which are Title 11 cases.

The structure and context of § 157 contradict Pierce's interpretation, the authors say. Congress failed to provide any framework for identifying or adjudicating the asserted category of core but not "arising" proceedings, they say.

1. Did the court find that federal law granted the Bankruptcy Court jurisdiction over the debtor’s counterclaim to the creditor’s claim? Why?

2. Did the court find that the Bankruptcy Court has the constitutional authority to do so? Why?