It is an explanatory appositive. Ms. Cordry's response also seems to assume that once a state or government passes a law, of whatever type, bankruptcy courts must enforce it unless it is unconstitutional. That is not my understanding of the law. Ms. Cordry likewise raises the Supremacy and Due Process Clauses to my analysis of the Court's Seminole decision. Initially, if all the decision did was to move the dispute to state instead of federal court, I would grumble about the erosion of the goal of having the bankruptcy court as the single forum to resolve disputes, but I wouldn't object too loud.
State courts are competent.
But that is part of the problem. Once you get into state court, you are suing the sovereign that established that court. Competent state court judges will then notice that there are state sovereign immunity concerns, particularly with money judgments. If the state has not seen fit to waive sovereign immunity, I think the bankrutpcy estate is in a quandry. Especially in an area where we are concerned with insolvent estates, I question the wisdom of this approach.