NORTHERN PIPELINE CONST. v. MARATHON PIPE LINE

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
81-150
Appellee 
Marathon Pipe Line
Appellant 
Northern Pipeline Const.
Consolidation 
No. 81-546
Opinion 
Advocates
(Argued the cause for the appellee, Marathon Pipe Line)
(Argued the cause for the appellant, Northern Pipeline Construction)
(Argued the cause for the United States in both cases)
Tags
Term:
Facts of the Case 

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 created a system of bankruptcy courts as an adjunct to the federal system of district courts. This case was decided together with United States v. Marathon Pipeline Co.

Question 

Did the Act violate Article III of the Constitution?

Conclusion 
Decision: 6 votes for Marathon Pipe Line, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 1, Paragraph 2: Good Behavior and Compensation Clause of Federal Judges

Yes. A plurality held that Congress had essentially conferred Article III powers to an adjunct system of courts and, consequently, "impermissibly removed most, if not all, of the essential attributes of the judicial power" from the district courts.

Cite this Page
NORTHERN PIPELINE CONST. v. MARATHON PIPE LINE. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 19 June 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_81_150>.
NORTHERN PIPELINE CONST. v. MARATHON PIPE LINE, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_81_150 (last visited June 19, 2014).
"NORTHERN PIPELINE CONST. v. MARATHON PIPE LINE," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed June 19, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_81_150.