United States Sixth Circuit

In an action against the government challenging the constitutionality of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), and alleging that it is not a "uniform law" since median-income calculations under the act are based in part on the state and county where the debtor is located resulting in different relief, summary judgment and dismissal of plaintiff's complaint is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs have standing to challenge the mean income calculations under Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 since the same calculation is used under both schemes; 2) BAPCPA is a uniform law since Congress is allowed to distinguish among classes of debtors and to treat them differently through incorporation of varying state laws; 3) employing federal income standards does not enable preferential treatment of debtors in some states over those of another; and 4) the heightened scrutiny standard applied in United States v. Ptasynski, 462 U.S. 74 (1983), is not dispositive in the area of bankruptcy.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/02/2008
• Published 06/02/2008

Judges

• Before: RYAN, SILER, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Thomas E. Ray, Samples, Jennings, Ray & Clem, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellants.  Lewis Yelin, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.   ON BRIEF:  Thomas E. Ray, Samples, Jennings, Ray & Clem, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellants.  Lewis Yelin, William Kanter, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.  George W. Kuney, University of Tennessee College of Law, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Amicus Curiae.