Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-357_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

reference or provide any other indication that it was trans-
forming §362(a)(3).  The better account of the statutory his-
tory is that the 1984 amendment, by adding the phrase re-
garding the exercise of control, simply extended the stay to
acts  that  would  change  the  status  quo  with respect  to  in-
tangible  property  and  acts  that  would  change  the  status 
quo with respect to tangible property without “obtain[ing]” 
such property. 

* 

* 

* 
Though the parties debate the issue at some length, we
need not decide how the turnover obligation in §542 oper-
ates.  Nor do we settle the meaning of other subsections of 
§362(a).2  We hold only that mere retention of estate prop-
erty after the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not violate 
§362(a)(3)  of  the  Bankruptcy  Code.    The  judgment  of  the 
Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

 JUSTICE BARRETT took no part in the consideration or de-

cision of this case. 

It is so ordered.

—————— 

2 In  respondent  Shannon’s  case,  the  Bankruptcy  Court  determined 
that by retaining Shannon’s vehicle and demanding payment, the City 
also had violated §§362(a)(4) and (a)(6).  Shannon presented those theo-
ries to the Court of Appeals, but the court did not reach them.  926 F. 3d, 
at 926, n. 1.  Neither do we.