Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-357_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 11

2 

CHICAGO v. FULTON 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring 

violate  one  or  both  of  these  other  provisions.    The  Court 
does not decide one way or the other. 

Regardless of whether the City’s policy of refusing to re-
turn impounded vehicles satisfies the letter of the Code, it 
hardly comports with its spirit.  “The principal purpose of 
the Bankruptcy Code is to grant a ‘ “fresh start” ’ ” to debt-
ors.  Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass., 549 U. S. 365, 367 
(2007)  (quoting  Grogan  v.  Garner,  498  U. S.  279,  286 
(1991)).  When a debtor files for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, as
respondents did here, “the debtor retains possession of his
property”  and  works  toward  completing  a  court-approved
repayment plan.  549 U. S., at 367.  For a Chapter 13 bank-
ruptcy to succeed, therefore, the debtor must continue earn-
ing an income so he can pay his creditors.  Indeed, Chapter
13 bankruptcy is available only to “individual[s] with regu-
lar income.”  11 U. S. C. §109(e).

For many, having a car is essential to maintaining em-
ployment.  Take,  for  example,  respondent  George  Peake. 
Before the City seized his car, Peake relied on his 200,000-
mile 2007 Lincoln MKZ to travel 45 miles each day from his 
home on the South Side of Chicago to his job in Joliet, Illi-
nois.  In June 2018, when the City impounded Peake’s car 
for  unpaid  parking  and  red-light  tickets,  the  vehicle  was 
worth just around $4,300 (and was already serving as col-
lateral for a roughly $7,300 debt).  Without his car, Peake 
had to pay for rides to Joliet.  He filed for bankruptcy, hop-
ing  to  recover  his  vehicle  and  repay  his  $5,393.27  debt  to 
the  City  through  a  Chapter  13  plan.    The  City,  however,
refused to return the car until either Peake paid $1,250 up-
front or after the court confirmed Peake’s bankruptcy plan.
As a result, Peake’s car remained in the City’s possession 
for  months.  By  denying  Peake  access  to  the  vehicle  he 
needed  to  commute  to  work,  the  City  jeopardized  Peake’s 
ability to make payments to all his creditors, the City in-
cluded.  Surely, Peake’s vehicle would have been more val-
uable in the hands of its owner than parked in the City’s