Constitutional Concerns Presented by Proposed Orderly Liquidation Authority Panel


The Orderly Liquidation Authority Panel that would be authorized by section 202 of the Committee Print of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 would have independent jurisdiction to determine the statutory permissibility of petitions issued by the Secretary of the Treasury to appoint the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver for certain systemically important financial companies that are in default or in danger of default. If this Panel—a bankruptcy court tribunal composed of three judges from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware who are appointed by the Chief Judge of that court—were deemed to be a part of the Executive Branch, its exercise of this jurisdiction would raise both Appointments Clause and separation of powers concerns.

If the Panel instead were deemed to be a part of the Judicial Branch, the Appointments Clause concerns would be mitigated, if not resolved, but the separation of powers concerns would be heightened.

The Panel could be located within the Judicial Branch while addressing both the Appointments Clause and separation of powers concerns if Congress were to vest jurisdiction to review receivership petitions in an Article III court, with that court authorized to refer such petitions to the Panel and to withdraw referrals under appropriate circumstances, or if the Panel were to consist of Article III judges rather than bankruptcy judges. This structure, however, would likely prevent the Panel from adjudicating petitions where the financial company consents to the appointment of the FDIC as receiver and thus does not present a justiciable case or controversy.

Updated January 27, 2017