Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE v. JOHN Q. HAMMONS FALL 2006, LLC, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

No. 22–1238. Argued January 9, 2024—Decided June 14, 2024 Two Terms ago, in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 596 U. S. 464, the Court held that a statute violated the Bankruptcy Clause’s uniformity requirement be- cause it permitted different fees for Chapter 11 debtors depending on the district where their case was filed. In this case, the Court is asked to determine the appropriate remedy for that constitutional violation. As noted in Siegel, there are three options: (1) refund fees for the thou- sands of debtors charged higher fees in districts administered by the U. S. Trustee Program, (2) retroactively extract higher fees from the small number of debtors charged lower fees in districts administered by the Bankruptcy Administrator Program, or (3) require only prospec- tive fee parity. See id., at 480. As in Siegel, this case arises from a case filed in a U. S. Trustee dis- trict. In 2016, 76 legal entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the District of Kansas. In 2018, under the amended fee statute the Court later found unconstitutional in Siegel, the debtors began paying higher fees than they would have if their case had been filed in a Bankruptcy Administrator district. In 2020, the debtors challenged the constitu- tionality of those fees. The Bankruptcy Court found no constitutional violation, but the Tenth Circuit, anticipating Siegel, reversed. To rem- edy the constitutional violation, the Tenth Circuit ordered a refund of the debtors’ quarterly fees to the extent they exceeded the lower fees paid in the Bankruptcy Administrator districts. This Court vacated that judgment and remanded the case in light of Siegel, and the Tenth Circuit reinstated its original opinion without alteration. Held: Prospective parity is the appropriate remedy for the short-lived and small disparity created by the fee statute held unconstitutional in Siegel. Pp. 5–16. 2 UNITED STATES TRUSTEE v. JOHN Q. HAMMONS FALL 2006, LLC Syllabus

(a) Across remedial contexts, “the nature of the violation determines the scope of the remedy.” Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U. S. 1, 16. Three aspects of the Court’s holding in Siegel are rel- evant here. First, the violation identified was nonuniformity, not high fees. Second, the fee disparity was short lived, lasting only from 2018 to 2021. Third, the disparity was small: 98% of the relevant class of debtors still paid uniform fees. Pp. 5–7. (b) To determine the appropriate remedy for this short-lived and small disparity, the Court asks “what the legislature would have willed had it been apprised of the constitutional infirmity.” Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 U. S. 47, 74. In cases involving unequal treat- ment, the Court focuses on two considerations: Congress’s “intensity of commitment” to the more broadly applicable rule, and “the degree of potential disruption to the statutory scheme that would occur” if the Court were to extend the exception. Id., at 75. Here, faced with the short-lived and small fee disparity created by the constitutional viola- tion identified in Siegel, Congress would have wanted prospective par- ity, not a