Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-357_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

6 

CHICAGO v. FULTON 

Opinion of the Court 

Second,  respondents’  reading  would  render  the  com-
mands  of  §362(a)(3)  and  §542  contradictory.    Section  542 
carves  out  exceptions  to  the  turnover  command,  and 
§542(a) by its terms does not mandate turnover of property 
that  is  “of  inconsequential  value  or  benefit  to  the  estate.” 
Under  respondents’  reading,  in  cases  where  those  excep-
tions to turnover under §542 would apply, §362(a)(3) would 
command turnover all the same.  But it would be “an odd 
construction” of §362(a)(3) to require a creditor to do imme-
diately  what  §542  specifically  excuses.    Citizens  Bank  of 
Md. v. Strumpf, 516 U. S. 16, 20 (1995).  Respondents would
have  us  resolve  the  conflicting  commands  by  engrafting 
§542’s exceptions onto §362(a)(3), but there is no textual ba-
sis for doing so. 

The  history  of  the  Bankruptcy  Code  confirms  what  its
text  and  structure  convey.    Both  §362(a)(3)  and  §542(a)
were included in the original Bankruptcy Code in 1978.  See 
Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 2570, 2595.  At the 
time, §362(a)(3) applied the stay only to “any act to obtain
possession of property of the estate or of property from the 
estate.”  Id., at 2570.  The phrase “or to exercise control over 
property  of  the  estate”  was  not  added  until  1984.    Bank-
ruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, 98
Stat. 371. 

Respondents do not seriously dispute that §362(a)(3) im-
posed no turnover obligation prior to the 1984 amendment.
But transforming the stay in §362 into an affirmative turn-
over  obligation  would  have  constituted  an  important
change.  And it would have been odd for Congress to accom-
plish  that  change  by  simply  adding  the  phrase  “exercise
control,” a phrase that does not naturally comprehend the
mere retention of property and that does not admit of the
exceptions set out in §542.  Had Congress wanted to make
§362(a)(3) an enforcement arm of sorts for §542(a), the least 
one  would  expect  would  be  a  cross-reference  to  the  latter
provision,  but  Congress  did  not  include  such  a  cross-