Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 87

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

27 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

emphasis added; alterations omitted).

These two approaches together stand for the proposition
that “[i]f a statutory right is not closely intertwined with a
federal  regulatory  program  Congress  has  power  to  enact, 
and if that right neither belongs to nor exists against the 
Federal Government, then it must be adjudicated by an Ar-
ticle III court.”  492 U. S., at 54–55 (emphasis added).  Once 
in federal court, “[i]f the right is legal in nature, then it car-
ries with it the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of a jury 
trial.”  Id., at 55. 

Because Granfinanciera did not involve a statutory right 
that belonged to the Government in its sovereign capacity, 
Atlas  Roofing  did  not  control  the  outcome.  Instead,  the 
Court  applied  the  private-disputes  test  to  determine 
whether fraudulent-conveyance “actions were ‘closely inter-
twined’ with the bankruptcy regime.”  Ante, at 20 (quoting 
Granfinanciera, 492 U. S., at 54).  The Court held that the 
fraudulent-conveyance actions “were not inseparable from
the bankruptcy process,” and thus the public-rights excep-
tion did not apply.  Ante, at 20 (citing Granfinanciera, 492 
U. S., at 54, 56).

The  majority  brushes  aside  this  critical  distinction  be-
tween  Atlas  Roofing  and  Granfinanciera  in  one  sentence. 
That “the Government is the party prosecuting this action,”
the majority writes, is meaningless because this Court has
“never  held  that  the  ‘presence  of  the  United  States  as  a 
proper party to the proceeding is . . . sufficient’ by itself to
trigger the exception.”  Ante, at 22 (quoting Northern Pipe-
line Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U. S. 50, 69, 
n. 23 (1982) (plurality opinion)).  Here, too, the majority at-
tacks a strawman.  The SEC does not claim that the mere 
presence of the United States as a proper party necessarily 
means that a public right is at issue.  See Reply Brief 8, n. 2 
(disclaiming  this  argument).9    Of  course  “what  matters  is 

—————— 

9 Indeed,  “the  public-rights  doctrine  does  not  extend  to  any  criminal