Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-859new_kjfm.pdf
Page Number: 85.0

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

25 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

rights analysis only for “disputes to which the Federal Gov-
ernment is not a party in its sovereign capacity.”  492 U. S., 
at  55,  n. 10.    For  cases  that,  as  here,  involve  the  Govern-
ment  in  its  sovereign  capacity,  the  Granfinanciera  Court 
plainly stated that “Congress may fashion causes of action 
that are closely analogous to common-law claims and [still]
place them beyond the ambit of the Seventh Amendment by 
assigning  their  resolution  to  a  [non-Article  III]  forum  in
which jury trials are unavailable.”  Id., at 52 (citing Atlas 
Roofing, 430 U. S., at 450–461).8 

The Court held in Granfinanciera that “a person who has
not  submitted  a  claim  against  a  bankruptcy  estate  has  a
right to a jury trial when sued by the trustee in bankruptcy 
to recover an allegedly fraudulent monetary transfer.”  492 
U. S.,  at  36.  In  doing  so,  the  Court  noted  that  actions  to 
recover  such  transfers  through  a  claim  of  fraudulent  con-
veyance were traditionally available at common law.  See 

—————— 

8 The majority leaves open the possibility that Granfinanciera might 
have  overruled  Atlas  Roofing.  See  ante,  at  22–23.  That  suggestion 
strains credulity.  By my count, Granfinanciera favorably cites to Atlas 
Roofing at least 12 times.  See 492 U. S., at 48, 51–54, 57, 60–61; see also 
id., at 65 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).  It 
even reaffirmed the definition of public rights from Atlas Roofing, declar-
ing that the Court “adhere[d] to that general teaching . . . in Atlas Roof-
ing.”  492 U. S., at 51.  The majority’s only response is to say that Justice 
White thought Granfinanciera may have overruled Atlas Roofing.  See 
ante, at 23, n. 3; see also ante, at 17 (GORSUCH, J., concurring).  That is 
misleading at best.  When Justice White said in his Granfinanciera dis-
sent that the Court’s opinion in that case could be read as overruling or
limiting portions of several cases, including Atlas Roofing, he was refer-
ring  to  his  understanding  that  Atlas  Roofing  also  extended  to  private 
disputes.  See Granfinanciera, 492 U. S., at 79–83; see also Tr. of Oral 
Arg. 58–59 (Principal Deputy Solicitor General explaining that Justice 
White  understood  “Atlas  Roofing  to  speak  [also]  to  the  private  parties 
cases,”  not  just  to  cases  involving  the  Government,  which  “is  really  a 
through  line  that  the  Court  has  never  questioned”).  With  respect  to
claims  involving  the  Government,  such  as  those  at  issue  here,  Granfi-
nanciera expressly reaffirmed Atlas Roofing and “adhere[d] to [its] gen-
eral teaching.”  492 U. S., at 51.