Wellness International Network, Ltd. Petitioners v. Richard Sharif — Thomas, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Thomas dissents, arguing that whether parties may consent to non-Article III bankruptcy courts adjudicating Stern claims is a difficult constitutional question the majority resolves too easily. He contends consent cannot authorize the Government to exceed constitutional boundaries, and separation of powers structural interests are implicated. Thomas writes separately to highlight the complexity of whether a constitutional violation has actually occurred before consent can even operate. He would have remanded to determine whether the claim is a Stern claim under the proper standard.