Court Opinion

ID: 9686984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:13:11.119617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:23.543598
License: Public Domain

BOULDEN, Bankruptcy Judge,
Dissenting.
I concur in much of the majority’s analysis of this case. On the pivotal issue of *422whether § 106(a), as it relates to § 525(a), is a valid abrogation of the States’ sovereign immunity, however, I dissent. I would affirm the bankruptcy court and allow the Damages Suit to proceed, because § 106(a) is a valid abrogation of the States’ sovereign immunity when read in conjunction with § 525(a).

1. A Constitutional Analysis of§ 106(a) must be made on a Statute-by-Statute Basis

The history and current language of § 106(a) requires that any analysis to test the constitutionality of the statute be conducted separately for each specific Bankruptcy Code section listed in § 106(a)(1) under which a plaintiff seeks relief against a State. Prior to 1994, Congress attempted to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity under § 106(c)1 with statutory language that made the statute applicable to any provision of the Bankruptcy Code which contained certain “trigger words.” 11 U.S.C. § 106(c)(1) (repealed 1994). After former § 106(c) was held to be an invalid abrogation of sovereign immunity because it did not unequivocally express an intent to abrogate, Hoffman v. Connecticut Department of Income Maintenance, 492 U.S. 96, 109 S.Ct. 2818, 106 L.Ed.2d 76 (1989); see United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 112 S.Ct. 1011, 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992), Congress amended § 106 under the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, Pub.L. No. 103-394 (Oct. 22, 1994).
In what is now § 106(a), Congress not only made its intent to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity unequivocally clear, it dramatically changed the abrogation provision by making it applicable to sixty specific sections of the Bankruptcy Code. The broad abrogation language of § 106(a) was qualified, with it now being expressly applicable “with respect to” only those Code provisions listed in subsection (1). 11 U.S.C. § 106(a).
Despite this fact, the courts that have examined the constitutionality of § 106(a) have looked only at the general abrogation language, failing to apply the narrow, qualifying language. See, e.g., Sacred Heart Hosp. v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Pub. Welfare (In re Sacred Heart Hosp.), 133 F.3d 237, 243-44 (3d Cir.1998); Department of Transp. & Dev. v. PNL Asset Management Co. LLC (In re Fernandez), 123 F.3d 241, 245 (5th Cir.1997); Schlossberg v. Maryland Comptroller of the Treasury (In re Creative Goldsmiths of Washington D.C., Inc.), 119 F.3d 1140, 1146-47 (4th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1075, 118 S.Ct. 1517, 140 L.Ed.2d 670 (1998); In re Merchants Grain, Inc., 59 F.3d 630 (7th Cir.1995), cert. granted and decision vacated, 517 U.S. 1130, 116 S.Ct. 1411, 134 L.Ed.2d 537 (1996). This view is contrary to the plain language of § 106(a), and to the general rule of statutory construction that every provision of a statute must have some operative effect. See, e.g., Walters v. Metropolitan Educ. Enters., Inc., 519 U.S. 202, 208, 117 S.Ct. 660, 136 L.Ed.2d 644 (1997); Nordic Village, 503 U.S. at 36, 112 S.Ct. 1011; Hoffman, 492 U.S. at 103, 109 S.Ct. 2818. It is also contrary to the rule that Congress is presumed to have intended to include provisions within a statute, and that such inclusions must be purposeful.2 See, e.g., Russello v. United States, *423464 U.S. 16, 22, 104 S.Ct. 296, 78 L.Ed.2d 17 (1983); Hearn v. Western Conference of Teamsters, 68 F.3d 301, 304 (9th Cir.1995); see also Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35, 118 S.Ct. 956, 140 L.Ed.2d 62 (1998).
A reading of the statute that applies its plain language and the rules of statutory construction, mandates that § 106(a) be read in conjunction with the particular Code section provided for in subsection (1) under which a debtor seeks affirmative relief. Here, Straight seeks damages against the DOT related to its violation of §§ 362 and 525(a), so my analysis is confined to those sections.3

II. The “Valid Exercise of Power” Test

As discussed by the majority, the second prong of the two part test in Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996), instructs that Congress may only abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity if it is acting pursuant to a “valid exercise of power” under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The “valid exercise of power” test requires that the statute in question implicate the Fourteenth Amendment, and meet certain limitations as set forth in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 518-19, 117 S.Ct. 2157, 138 L.Ed.2d 624 (1997). See Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, — U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 631, 644-45, 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000); College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 119 S.Ct. 2219, 2224, 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999); Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. 627, 119 S.Ct. 2199, 2205-2206, 144 L.Ed.2d 575 (1999). I conclude that § 106(a), as it relates to § 525(a), validly abrogates the States’ sovereign immunity because it both implicates the Fourteenth Amendment and it is appropriate legislation under Boeme.

A. Section 106(a), as it relates to § 625(a), implicates § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment

No express language is required to prove that a statute implicates the Fourteenth Amendment. “Congress need not ‘recite the words’ ‘section 5’ or ‘Fourteenth Amendment’ ... when enacting laws pursuant to this power, [but] if Congress does not explicitly identify the -source of its power as the Fourteenth Amendment, there must be something about the act connecting it to recognized Fourteenth Amendment aims.” Sacred Heart Hospital, 133 F.3d at 244 (citation and internal quotations omitted); accord Kimel, 120 *424S.Ct. at 644; Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226, 243 n. 18, 103 S.Ct. 1054, 75 L.Ed.2d 18 (1983) (citing Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 476-78, 100 S.Ct. 2758, 65 L.Ed.2d 902 (1980); Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co., 333 U.S. 138, 144, 68 S.Ct. 421, 92 L.Ed. 596 (1948)). It is sufficient that a statute “could reasonably” have been authorized by the Fourteenth Amendment, and it is not necessary that Congress actually intended to invoke that authority. Franks v. Kentucky School for the Deaf, 142 F.3d 360, 363 (6th Cir.1998); see Equal Employment, 460 U.S. at 243 n. 18, 103 S.Ct. 1054; Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co. v. Public Utility Comm’n, 141 F.3d 88, 92 (3d Cir.1998); Crawford v. Davis, 109 F.3d 1281, 1283-84 (8th Cir.1997).
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall “deprive any person of ... property ... without due process of law.” U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § l.4 The “Due Process Clause,” therefore, applies only to a “deprivation” of a “protected property interest” by a State without “due process of law.” College Sav. Bank, 119 S.Ct. at 2224; Florida Prepaid, 119 S.Ct. at 2208-09.

(a) Protected property interest

“The hallmark of a protected property interest is the right to exclude others.” College Sav. Bank, 119 S.Ct. at 2224. The test is whether the holder of the property interest has “a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); accord Greene v. Barrett, 174 F.3d 1136, 1140 (10th Cir.1999). Discussing the definition of a property interest protected under the Due Process Clause, the Court in College Savings Bank, 119 S.Ct. at 2225, stated: “The assets of a business (including its good will) unquestionably are property, and any state taking of those assets is unquestionably a ‘deprivation’ under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Under certain circumstances, protected property interests include business assets, such as licenses, permits, grants, or entitlements issued by governmental units. “Where state law gives people a benefit and creates, a system of nondiscretionary rules governing revocation or renewal of that benefit, the recipients have a secure and durable property right, a legitimate claim of entitlement.” Cornelius v. LaCroix, 838 F.2d 207, 210 (7th Cir.1988) (discussing whether MBEs (similar to a DBE) certified on a contract-by-contract basis represented a protected property right); see North Am. Group, Inc. v. County of Wayne, 106 F.3d 401, 1997 WL 34658 (6th Cir. Jan.28, 1997) (unpublished decision) (plaintiff had a property interest in DBE certification if it had a “legitimate claim of entitlement” to continued possession, citing Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701); Baja Contractors, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 830 F.2d 667, 676-77 (7th Cir.1987) (in preliminary injunction action, contractor, asserting City had violated the Due Process Clause, established a likeli*425hood of showing that it had a protected property interest in MBE certification because the City already conferred that benefit upon it).

(b) Deprivation without due process

A violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not possible unless it is demonstrated that a person is “deprived” of its protected property interest without due process. Florida Prepaid, 119 S.Ct. at 2208. This' element requires a showing that the holder of the protected property interest had “no remedy, or only inadequate remedies” against the State’s taking of its protected property interest. Id. The State must also act intentionally in taking the protected property interest, rather than a taking that may have occurred through negligence or mistake. Id., 119 S.Ct. at 2209.
Even if there is an intentional governmental taking of a protected property interest, there is no violation of the Fourteenth Amendment unless the taking occurs without due process. Procedural due process ensures that a State will not deprive a person of property, unless fair procedures are used in making that decision. Substantive due process guarantees that the State will not deprive a person of property for an arbitrary reason, regardless of how fair the procedures are that are used in making the decision. Archuleta v. Colorado Dep’t of Insts., Div. of Youth Servs., 936 F.2d 483, 490 (10th Cir.1991); see Clark v. City of Draper, 168 F.3d 1185, 1190 (10th Cir.1999) (“An arbitrary deprivation of an individual’s property right can violate the substantive component of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... [but] any substantive due process claim” must “shock the conscience,” and “[t]o reach that level, the government action must be deliberate, rather than merely negligent.”); Tonkovich v. Kansas Bd. of Regents, 159 F.3d 504, 529 (10th Cir.1998) (there is some indication the “shocks the conscious” standard of substantive due process and the “arbitrariness” standard are used interchangeably when applied to administrative action); see also Greene, 174 F.3d at 1141 (finding a deprivation of property interest of sheriffs rank and denial of due process where sheriff had no hearing before his reduction in rank); Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Angelucci (In re Blue Diamond Coal Co.), 145 B.R. 895 (Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1992) (discussing Fourteenth Amendment due process claim and § 525 claim related to revoking certificate of self-insurance).

(c) Application of Fourteenth Amendment elements to § 525(a)

Relating these factors to this case, I conclude that Congress was legislating under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment when it enacted § 106(a), as it relates to § 525(a). See Kenneth N. Klee, James O. Johnson, & Eric Winston, State Defiance of Bankruptcy Law, 52 Vand. L.Rev. 1527, 1545-51 (1999) (§ 525 may create a “limited exception” to finding § 106(a) constitutional) and 1578-81 (recognizing that under Florida Prepaid there may be instances where § 106(a), as it relates to the sections in subsection (1), may be constitutional if the section to which it relates deals with property interests protected under the Due Process Clause).
By its express terms, § 525(a)5 applies to a narrow set of specifically enumerated property interests. It applies only to licenses, permits, charters, franchises, or similar rights granted by a State. If the holder of such an interest has a legitimate claim of entitlement to it, the property interest is protected under the Fourteenth *426Amendment. Section 525(a) also prevents the States from depriving the holder of that protected property interest. It precludes the States from intentionally6 denying, revoking, suspending or refusing to renew a license or other grant simply because of the holder’s status as a debtor or insolvent, or because a discharged debt owed by the holder goes unpaid. All of these proscribed acts would constitute a deprivation if they occurred in relation to a protected property interest. Section 106(a), as it relates to 525(a), also assumes that a debtor, as the holder of the protected property interest, would have “no remedy, or inadequate remedies” against the State’s taking of its interest because it presumes that, unless abrogated, sovereign immunity would preclude an action against the State. Section 525(a) also implicates substantive due process because it proscribes arbitrary governmental taking based solely upon a property holder’s status as debtor or insolvent, or because such a holder fails to pay a discharged or dis-chargeable debt.

B. Section 106(a), as it applies to § 525(a), is appropriate legislation under Boeme

In addition to implicating § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, § 106(a), as it relates to § 525(a), is appropriate legislation under Boerne, 521 U.S. at 519-20, 117 5.Ct. 2157. As discussed by the majority, in Boerne, the Court held that Congress’ powers under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment are limited to “enforcing” the protections set forth in § 1 of the Amendment. Congress may not, therefore, define violations of § 1, but rather may only enact legislation that “remedies” such violations. In so holding, the Court stated:
While the line between measures that remedy or prevent unconstitutional actions and measures that make a substantive change in the governing law is not easy to discern, and Congress must have wide latitude in determining where it lies, the distinction exists and must be observed. There must be a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end. Lacking such a connection, legislation may become substantive in operation and effect.
Id., quoted in Florida Prepaid, 119 S.Ct. at 2206; accord Kimel, 120 S.Ct. at 644. The Court in Boerne “held that for Congress to invoke § 5, it must identify conduct transgressing the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive provisions, and must tailor its legislative scheme to remedying or preventing such conduct.” Florida Prepaid, 119 S.Ct. at 2207; accord Kimel, 120 S.Ct. at 644. In so doing, the courts must be “guided by the principle that the propriety of any § 5 legislation ‘must be judged with reference to the historical experience ... it reflects.’ ” Florida Prepaid, 119 S.Ct. at 2207 (quoting Boerne, 521 U.S. at 525, 117 S.Ct. 2157).
Applying this test, the Court in Boeme, and later in Florida Prepaid and Kimel, looked to the legislative history of the statutes in question to determine whether there was evidence of a Fourteenth Amendment violation that required a remedy. There is no question that there is scant legislative history regarding § 525(a) that recites a pattern of the States depriving debtors’ of their protected property interests without due process solely because of their status as debtors or insolvents, or because discharged debts had not been paid. However, the “historical experience” of § 525(a) indicates that it was enacted by Congress in response to a specific problem identified in 1971 in Supreme Court case law. See Exquisito Servs., Inc. v. United States (In re Exquisito Servs., *427Inc.), 823 F.2d 151, 154 (5th Cir.1987) (describing the history of § 525). In 1973-1978, when proposed amendments to the former Bankruptcy Act were being discussed and debated, the problems § 525(a) was meant to solve had already been identified by the Supreme Court and there was no need for testimony and debate on the issue.
Section 525(a) is a codification of Perez v. Campbell, 402 U.S. 637, 91 S.Ct. 1704, 29 L.Ed.2d 233 (1971). H.R.Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 366-7 (1977); S.Rep. No. 989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 81 (1978). In Perez the Court concluded that the Supremacy Clause7 invalidated a part of Arizona’s Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act as being in conflict with the mandate of § 17 of the former Bankruptcy Act. Perez made clear that it was attempting to foreclose State actions that had the “ ‘plain and inevitable effect’ ” of collecting discharged debts, thereby contravening the purpose of the bankruptcy laws. Perez, 402 U.S. at 650, 91 S.Ct. 1704 (quoting Kesler v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 369 U.S. 153, 183, 82 S.Ct. 807, 7 L.Ed.2d 641 (1962) (Black, J., dissenting)).
Unlike the statutes in Boeme, Florida Prepaid, and Kimel, where the Court found little evidence in the Congressional record to support a pattern of State infringement of protected rights upon which to base remedial action, § 525(a) was enacted to codify what the Court itself held to be unconstitutional State conduct. The lack of legislative history to § 525(a) identifying a pattern of Fourteenth Amendment violations, therefore, is not an indication that Congress was defining, as opposed to remedying, such violations. Indeed, prior to the enactment of § 525(a), Perez prevented the States from depriving debtors of the property interests protected therein. If Congress had been able to identify a pervasive pattern of State infringement of protected property rights as a result of a debtor’s status or discharge in 1978 when it enacted § 525(a), it would have meant that States had been failing to adhere to Perez for the prior seven years since Perez was issued.
Not only does § 525(a) “remedy” impermissible State conduct as identified in Perez, rather than attempt to define Fourteenth Amendment violations, but it is also narrowly drafted so as to be in harmony with and in proportion to the alleged constitutional violation. Boerne, 521 U.S. at 532, 117 S.Ct. 2157; accord, Kimel, 120 S.Ct. at 644 & 647; Florida Prepaid, 119 S.Ct. at 2206 & 2209. Section 525(a) is not “so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive object that it cannot be understood as responsive to, or designed to prevent, unconstitutional behavior.” Boerne, 521 U.S. at 532, 117 S.Ct. 2157, quoted in Kimel, 120 S.Ct. at 647; Florida Prepaid, 119 S.Ct. at 2210. Specifically, § 525(a) narrowly defines a select group of “property interests” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, i.e., licenses, permits, charters, franchises and similar grants to which a debtor may have a legitimate claim of entitlement. Section 525(a) also narrowly specifies prohibited State conduct, ie., intentional denial, revocation, suspension, or refusal to renew a protected property interest solely because of the holder’s status as a debtor or insolvent, or because of its failure to repay a discharge-able or discharged debt. Id. Unlike the legislation considered in Florida Prepaid, the activities prohibited in § 525(a) cannot come about due to negligence on the part of the State. This narrow drafting remedies the problem identified in Perez, thereby preventing States from acting in conflict with the purpose of the bankruptcy laws to “give debtors ‘a new opportunity, in life and a clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and diseour-*428agement of pre-existing debt.’ ” Perez, 402 U.S. at 648, 91 S.Ct. 1704 (quoting Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U.S. 234, 244, 54 S.Ct. 695, 78 L.Ed. 1230 (1934)).
The majority contends that § 525(a) is not really based on Perez because it is much broader than a State’s attempt to avoid part of the impact of a bankruptcy discharge by forcing the debtor to pay a discharged debt which was the issue addressed in Perez. I respectfully disagree. The portion of § 525(a) which the majority finds to be an impermissible expansion of Perez is that section that prevents government action based upon the debtor’s status of having filed for bankruptcy, being insolvent before bankruptcy, or being associated with a bankrupt or debtor. My reading of Perez indicates the facts of the case match the language of § 525(a). In Perez, both Adolfo and Emma Perez filed bankruptcy. However, only Mr. Perez, driving in a car registered in his name but community property under the laws of Arizona, was involved in an accident prepetition. Both Mr. and Mrs. Perez confessed judgment, and both Mr. and Mrs. Perez’s drivers licenses and registration were suspended. As stated in Justice Blackmun’s concurrence, “Emma, a fault-free driver, ‘is without her license solely because she is the impecunious wife of an impecunious, negligent driver in a community property state.’ ” Perez, 402 U.S. at 669, 91 S.Ct. 1704 (quoting amicus brief). The concurrence, as it relates to Emma Perez, concludes that the Arizona statutes interfered with her bankruptcy discharge and violated the Supremacy Clause, but disagreed with the majority ruling as it related to Adolfo Perez. Therefore, I disagree that § 525(a)’s attempt to prohibit governmental action based upon status as a bankrupt or debtor, or association with a bankrupt is unrelated to, or cannot accurately be said to be derived from, Perez.
The legislative history to § 525(a) also makes clear that it was enacted to codify Perez. H.R.Rep. No. 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 366-7 (1977); S.Rep. No. 989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 81 (1978); Hearings on S. 234 and S. 236 before the Senate Sub-comm. on Improvements in Judicial Machinery, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., at p. 37 (1975) (testimony of Prof. Frank Kennedy) [Hereinafter “1975 Hearings”].8 Furthermore, the language of § 525(a) results from Congress’ attempt to narrow proscribed discriminatory behavior originally discussed in Perez. As originally proposed, the anti-discrimination statute provided:
Section Í-508. Protection Against Discriminatory Treatment. A person shall not be subjected to discriminatory treatment because he, or any person with whom he is or has been associated, is or has been a debtor or failed to pay a debt discharged in a case under the Act. This action does not preclude consideration, where relevant, of factors other than those specified in the preceding sentence, such as present and prospective financial condition or managerial ability.
Report of the Commission on the Bankruptcy Laws of the United States, H.R. Doc. No. 93-137, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., Pt. 2 *429at 143-44 (1973). This provision was later modified to what is now § 525(a) when Congress received complaints that it was too broad, thereby going beyond the problems as discussed by both the majority and concurrence in Perez. 1975 Hearings, at p. 37 (testimony of Prof. Frank Kennedy) (citing supporting authority), p. 129 (testimony of Walter W. Vaughn on behalf of the American Bankers Ass’n & Consumer Bankers Ass’n), & pp. 146 & 173 (testimony of Alvin 0. Wiese, Jr., Chairman of the Subcomm. on Bankruptcy of the Law Forum of the Nat’l Consumer Fin. Ass’n). Section 525(a), therefore, is narrowly drafted to specifically identify the interests protected and the State conduct proscribed.

III. Section 106(a), as it Relates to § 525(a), Applied to the Facts of this Case

It is undisputed that the DOT revoked Centerline’s DBE certification to which Straight had a legitimate claim of entitlement, and which is akin to a license, permit or other similar grant, in violation of § 525(a). The DBE Certification was within Straight’s “exclusive dominion,” and, as held in Straight II,9 was an asset of Straight’s business. Centerline’s DBE certification is therefore a property interest protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Baja Contractors, 830 F.2d at 676-77 (plaintiff had established a likelihood of showing that it had a protected property interest in MBE certification because the City had already conferred that benefit upon it).
The DOT’s revocation of Centerline’s DBE Certification was an action specifically proscribed in § 525(a). Further, it was an intentional, as opposed to a negligent act. The DOT’s revocation deprived Straight of her protected property interest without due process, upon a mere pretext, an incorrect legal conclusion and without hearing. Straight was afforded “no remedy, or only inadequate remedies” against the DOT because, absent the abrogation of sovereign immunity provided in § 106(a), no recovery action against the DOT was allowed. The DOT’s revocation of the DBE Certification also offended principles of substantive due process because it was based solely on Straight’s status as a debt- or which, under § 525(a), is impermissible and arbitrary.
These facts, supported by the appellate record, demonstrate that § 106(a), as it applies to § 525(a), was enacted by Congress pursuant to a valid exercise of power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment is implicated by the DOT’s deprivation of Straight’s protected property interest without due process, and § 525(a) was enacted by Congress within the limitations set forth in Boeme.

IV. Section § 106(a) as it Relates to § 362

My dissent is based on the conclusion that, contrary to the majority, I would allow the Damages Suit to proceed because § 106(a), as it relates to § 525(a), constitutionally abrogates the DOT’s sovereign immunity. A separate analysis employing the same criteria set forth above is required to review whether § 106(a), as it relates to § 362, the other section implicated in the Damages Suit, is a valid abrogation of sovereign immunity. Such an analysis serves as much to identify the elements that prove the constitutionality of § 106(a) as it applies to § 525, as it does to affirm that § 106(a), as applied to § 362, does not pass constitutional mus*430ter.10 Section 362, unlike § 525(a), is so broad in application that it cannot be said to be remedial legislation in the spirit of Boerne.

V. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, I respectfully dissent because I conclude that § 106(a), as it relates to § 525(a), validly abrogates the DOT’s sovereign immunity, and therefore the Damages Suit should be allowed to proceed.

. Section 106(c), prior to 1994, stated:
Except as provided in subsections (a) [dealing with waiver] and (b) [dealing with offset] of this section and notwithstanding any assertion of sovereign immunity-
(1) a provision of this title that contains "creditor”, “entity”, or "governmental unit” applies to governmental units; and
(2) a determination by the court of an issue arising under such a provision binds governmental units.
11 U.S.C. § 106(c) (repealed 1994).

. I note also that reading § 106(a) as it relates to § 525(a) is in accord with the “doctrine of constitutional doubt,” which generally holds that " 'every reasonable construction [of a statute] must be resorted to, in order to save [it] from unconstitutionality.’ ” Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575, 108 S.Ct. 1392, 99 L.Ed.2d 645 (1988) (quoting Hooper v. California, 155 U.S. 648, *423657, 15 S.Ct. 207, 39 L.Ed. 297 (1895)); accord Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 658, 117 S.Ct. 1573, 137 L.Ed.2d 917 (1997). Thus,
"where a statute is susceptible of two constructions, by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise and by the other of which such questions are avoided, our duty is to adopt the latter.” United States ex rel. Attorney General v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U.S. 366, 408, [29 S.Ct. 527, 53 L.Ed. 836] (1909).... It is "out of respect for Congress, which we assume legislates in the light of constitutional limitations,” Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 191, 111 S.Ct. 1759, 114 L.Ed.2d 233 (1991), that we adhere to this principle, which "has for so long been applied by this Court that it beyond debate.” Edward J. DeBartolo Corp., 485 U.S [568 at] 575, [108 S.Ct. 1392, 99 L.Ed.2d 645 (1988)]....
Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 239-40, 119 S.Ct. 1215, 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999); accord, Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 237-38, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998); Branson School Dist. RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619, 636 (10th Cir.1998), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 1461, 143 L.Ed.2d 546 (1999).

. The majority argues, in part, that because § 106(a) may be made applicable to many Code sections which do not implicate State action or which involve State action that is not wrongful, § 106(a), on a whole, is not "aimed at preventing States from violating the Fourteenth Amendment.” Supra, p. 417. This analysis, like the analysis of the circuit courts holding § 106(a) to be unconstitutional, does not narrow the scope of review to the particular facts of the case being considered. The only issue in this case is whether § 106(a), as it relates to §§ 362 and 525, is constitutional.

. The Fourteenth Amendment also states: "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1. Section 525(a) does not appear to implicate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, although the title to that section, which references protection against discriminatory treatment, and its text, which refers to discrimination, may indicate otherwise. See United States v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434, 445, 93 S.Ct. 631, 34 L.Ed.2d 626 (1973) ("Bankruptcy is hardly akin to free speech or marriage or to those other rights, so many of which are imbedded in the First Amendment, that the Court has come to regard as fundamental and that demand the lofty requirement of a compelling governmental interest before they may be significantly regulated. Neither does it touch upon what have been said to be the suspect criteria of race, nationality, or alien-age .... This being so, the applicable standard, in measuring the propriety of Congress' classification, is that of rational justification.” (citations omitted)); see also United States v. Reorganized CF & I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U.S. 213, 116 S.Ct. 2106, 135 L.Ed.2d 506 (1996) (subtitle heading in statute is not controlling).

. Since our facts differ, we need not address here that portion of § 525(a) proscribing a State’s termination of a debtor’s employment solely because of a bankruptcy filing. Hennigh v. City of Shawnee, 155 F.3d 1249, 1254 (10th Cir.1998) (holding that under certain conditions a state statute or regulation can create a protected property interest in employment status or rank).

. Compare Florida Prepaid, 119 S.Ct. at 2205-09 (Patent Remedy Act did not implicate Fourteenth Amendment; the Act was drafted in a manner that would include negligent acts as well as intentional patent infringement). It is difficult to conjure a circumstance where a governmental unit could negligently commit a taking of property based solely on the person’s status as a debtor, insolvent, or because of the discharged nature of a debt.

. At footnote 10, Perez indicates that the bankrupt alleged the Arizona statute denied Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection. Unfortunately for our purposes, the Supreme Court found it unnecessary to address this claim. 402 U.S. at 644 n. 10, 91 S.Ct. 1704.

. Testifying as to “the record that led” to proposed anti-discrimination legislation, Professor Kennedy stated: "[T]he Commission was thinking primarily, if not exclusively, of discriminations imposed by the Government. We were seeking to implement the Perez case.” 1975 Hearings, at p. 37. I note also the "record” giving rise to anti-discrimination legislation included not only Perez, but also Kesler v. Dep't of Public Safety, 369 U.S. 153, 82 S.Ct. 807, 7 L.Ed.2d 641 (1962) and Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 62 S.Ct. 24, 86 L.Ed. 21 (1941), both of which were overturned by the Court in Perez. Both of these cases involved State legislation, similar to that addressed in Perez, depriving debtors of licenses, and having the "plain and inevitable effect” of circumventing bankruptcy law. In his testimony before Congress, Professor Kennedy refers to other State statutes and regulations "depriving persons of economic opportunity because they had gone into a bankruptcy of had obtained a discharge in bankruptcy,” that, although not before the Court in Perez, were within the type of State action disallowed by Perez. 1975 Hearings, at p. 37.

. In Straight II, the Tenth Circuit stated:
Ms. Straight ... initially sought the restoration of the certificate she owned prior to bankruptcy that was essential to the conduct of her postpetition business.... We believe, therefore, there can be no .doubt that in this quest the Debtor was in every sense seeking the return of property of the estate as that concept is broadly defined in 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).
Straight II, 143 F.3d at 1391.

. Not all actions under § 362 implicate protected property rights, which is a threshold requirement under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, §§ 362(a)(1) and (2) preclude actions against a debtor. Section 362 applies to entities in addition to governmental units, but only governmental units are implicated under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of preventing a "deprivation,” § 362(a) precludes certain activities until, upon motion pursuant to § 362(d), the court determines if grounds exist for terminating, annulling, modifying, or conditioning the stay. Further, though actions that violate the stay may occur without due process, such actions may also commence or continue due process proceedings in other courts. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1)-(2) and (8). In short, § 362 was drafted to proscribe such a broad spectrum of activities against both the debtor and estate that it does not implicate the Fourteenth Amendment.