text:
1. An accused's waiver of the right to counsel may not be presumed from a silent record. The State has the burden of showing that an accused was advised of his or her right to counsel, either retained or appointed, and that the waiver of counsel was knowingly and intelligently made.
2. A person accused of a misdemeanor has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel if the sentence to be imposed upon conviction includes a term of imprisonment, even if the jail time is suspended or conditioned upon a term of probation. The right to counsel arises at the stage of the proceedings where guilt is adjudicated, eligibility for imprisonment is established, and the prison sentence determined.
3. An uncounseled misdemeanor conviction obtained in violation of the misdemeanant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel may not be collaterally used for sentence enhancement in a subsequent criminal proceeding.
Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in No. 96,850, unpublished opinion filed April 25, 2008. Appeal from Harvey district court; JOE DICKINSON, judge. Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the district court is reversed. Judgment of the district court is reversed. Opinion filed May 8, 2009. Reversed and remanded.
Jared S. Maag, deputy solicitor general, argued the cause, and Michael X. Llamas, assistant county attorney, and Paul J. Morrison, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.
JOHNSON, J.: Galen Youngblood appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of hallucinogenic drugs, as a second offense. He claims that the prior misdemeanor conviction used to elevate the severity level of his current crime from a misdemeanor to a felony was unconstitutionally obtained without counsel or a valid waiver of counsel. Accordingly, Youngblood contends that the district court erred in convicting him of a felony in the current case. Finding the prior conviction to be constitutionally infirm, we reverse and remand.
"Except as otherwise provided, any person who violates this subsection shall be guilty of a class A nonperson misdemeanor. If any person has a prior conviction under this section, a conviction for a substantially similar offense from another jurisdiction or a conviction of a violation of an ordinance of any city or resolution of any county for a substantially similar offense if the substance involved was marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol as designated in subsection (d) of K.S.A. 65-4105 and amendments thereto, then such person shall be guilty of a drug severity level 4 felony. "
Youngblood filed a motion to dismiss the felony possession of marijuana count. He argued that because the municipal court conviction was uncounseled and he had not waived his right to counsel in municipal court, its use to enhance the marijuana charge from a class A misdemeanor to a drug severity level 4 felony violated his Sixth Amendment rights. The State conceded that the prior conviction was uncounseled but argued that Youngblood had waived his right to counsel in municipal court.
On February 15, 2005, the district court conducted a hearing on the motion to dismiss. Youngblood presented the municipal court docket sheet, a printed form on which the boxes for showing attorney representation and waiver of counsel were left blank in his case. The State submitted a waiver of attorney form from the municipal court proceedings which had been signed by Youngblood. However, the form was dated November 1, 2004, which was over 3 weeks after Youngblood had been sentenced on the marijuana charge and after he had served 5 days in jail on a consolidated driving under the influence (DUI) charge.
The trial court took the matter under advisement so that it could review the case law cited by the parties. On February 28, 2005, the trial court issued a letter stating that it would allow the State to reopen the hearing on the motion. The court opined that the State had the burden of showing that the prior misdemeanor conviction was constitutionally obtained and that the new hearing was being offered to afford the State an opportunity to meet its burden. The court noted that, unless the State presented new evidence, the court could not find that the burden had been met.
The State got its second chance hearing on March 9, 2005. It presented the testimony of City of Newton Municipal Court Judge Brad Jantz. Judge Jantz testified that it was his practice to always discuss the waiver of counsel with defendants, but that he had no independent recollection of the actual discussion with Youngblood.
The trial court also heard evidence as to whether Youngblood actually served jail time as a consequence of the previous marijuana conviction. Judge Jantz testified that he had sentenced Youngblood to 6 months in jail on the possession of marijuana charge, and he believed that sentence was imposed consecutively to the DUI sentence. Youngblood was to serve the mandatory 5 days on the DUI conviction before being placed on probation on all of the charges in the case. On February 24, 2005, Youngblood's probation had been revoked and reinstated for 1 year, but he was ordered to spend an additional 2 days in jail.
Ultimately the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. The district court interpreted the case law as requiring the actual service of jail time to trigger the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The court further opined that it was irrelevant that Youngblood had served actual jail time for his probation revocation, because at the original sentencing, he had been placed on probation. Additionally, the district court was persuaded by Judge Jantz' testimony that he always inquires about waiver of counsel.
The district court conducted a bench trial on September 1, 2005, based on stipulated evidence, which included the evidence presented at both hearings on the motion to dismiss. The trial court found Youngblood guilty of possession of hallucinogenic drugs, a second or subsequent offense, in violation of K.S.A. 65-4162(a)(3), a drug severity level 4 felony. Youngblood timely appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
We granted Youngblood's petition for review on the issue of whether the district court erred by enhancing the marijuana possession charge to a felony based upon a prior uncounseled municipal court conviction. The question has two components: (1) Whether Youngblood effectively waived his right to counsel in the municipal court prosecution; and (2) if not, whether the uncounseled municipal court conviction was unconstitutional so as to preclude its use to enhance the severity level of the crime in the subsequent prosecution.
"'[T]he [S]tate has the burden of showing that an accused was advised of his right to counsel, either retained or appointed, and that waiver of counsel was knowingly and intelligently made.'" In re Habeas Corpus Application of Gilchrist, 238 Kan. 202, 208, 708 P.2d 977 (1985) (quoting State v. Daniels, 2 Kan. App. 2d 603, 605-06, 586 P.2d 50 ). As the State acknowledges in its brief, a waiver of counsel may not be presumed from a silent record. See State v. Allen, 28 Kan. App. 2d 784, 788, 20 P.3d 747 (2001); Daniels, 2 Kan. App. 2d at 607.
Initially, the State submitted the post-dated waiver form to establish that Youngblood had waived counsel in the municipal proceeding. However, at the second hearing on Youngblood's motion to dismiss, the State focused on arguing that the right to counsel did not attach to the possession of marijuana charge in municipal court, rather than pursuing the argument that Youngblood had effectively waived his right to counsel. At that second hearing, the prosecutor did not ask the municipal judge a single question about the purported waiver.
However, the district court made its own inquiries about the waiver. In response to the district court's question as to what the municipal judge could tell the court about the waiver form which was signed after Youngblood had served his DUI jail time, the witness responded, "Very little." The municipal judge went on to say that occasionally a waiver form is filled out but not signed by an individual. In that case, the court will attempt to correct the oversight by having the form signed as soon as possible. The district court confirmed that the municipal judge did not dispute that the waiver form had been signed by both the judge and Youngblood on November 1, 2004, well after the plea hearing.
The municipal judge also answered in the affirmative to the district court's question: "Would it have been your practice at the time of the plea to ask if he waived counsel?" Pointedly, the district court did not inquire as to what the municipal judge would have advised Youngblood about his right to counsel, prior to asking whether he wished to waive it.
Defense counsel asked the municipal judge whether he had any independent recollection of whether Youngblood waived counsel on the day he pled or whether he waited to waive counsel until he signed the waiver form on November 1. The judge responded that he had "the general gist of the conversation with Mr. Youngblood in going through the standards, having done it hundreds of times with that inquiry but in terms of the exact quote of what he said, no. I don't." Again, no clarification was sought as to what "standards" the witness was referring or the nature and extent of the "inquiry" the municipal judge had made hundreds of times.
In Gilchrist, decided nearly two decades before Youngblood's municipal court appearance, this court clarified that the trial court must do more than simply ask a criminal defendant if he or she wants to waive counsel. "[T]he trial judge must advise the defendant of his right to counsel in 'clear and unequivocal language.'" 238 Kan. at 207. Moreover, a "'person must be informed of the right to retained or appointed counsel before he or she can make a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel.'" 238 Kan. at 207 (quoting Daniels, 2 Kan. App. 2d at 607).
Apparently, the State would have us accept on faith that the municipal judge's standard procedure includes sufficiently informing the defendant of his or her rights, so as to meet the criteria for a valid waiver. However, Gilchrist stressed the need to have either a record of the court proceedings in which a criminal defendant waives the right to counsel or a written waiver of counsel "for the purpose of proving an accused was properly advised of his rights and that he knowingly and intelligently waived those rights." 238 Kan. at 210.
With respect to municipal courts which are not courts of record, Gilchrist recognized the impracticability of a requirement that every waiver of counsel be recorded, but strongly urged municipal courts to obtain a written waiver. 238 Kan. at 209. The opinion went so far as to provide a suggested waiver of counsel form. 238 Kan. at 212. The benefit of such a practice is poignantly illustrated here. If the written waiver form had been executed at the plea hearing, we could be assured that Youngblood had received the advice to which he was due, e.g., that he had a right to have an attorney represent him in defending the case and that if he could not afford an attorney and he was found indigent, one would be appointed for him.
Perhaps an argument could be made that Youngblood's subsequent signing of the waiver form was an admission that he had waived his right to counsel at the plea hearing. Cf. Gilchrist, 238 Kan. at 207-08 (finding defendant's later admission as to the truth of municipal judge's testimony on the circumstances of the waiver supported a finding that the waiver was valid). That argument would be more compelling if the municipal judge had testified that Youngblood read the waiver form or that it was read to him at the plea hearing, i.e., that Youngblood had received advice on his right to counsel. It is not enough to show that Youngblood, after the fact, corroborated that he had waived counsel. The State must also prove that the initial waiver was properly obtained after appropriate advice as to the right to counsel, i.e., that the plea hearing waiver was knowingly and intelligently made. A post-sentencing written waiver will not legitimize an invalid pre-plea waiver.
Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals' holding that the State failed to carry its burden of proving that Youngblood was advised of his right to counsel and that a waiver of counsel was knowingly and intelligently made.
The district court's principal ruling was that Youngblood did not have a right to counsel on the possession of marijuana conviction in the municipal court because he was placed on probation for that charge; his initial 5 days' incarceration and the subsequent 2 days in jail for probation violation were attributable solely to the DUI conviction. The court opined that it made no difference that Youngblood's sentence included a term of incarceration which could be served if he subsequently violated the terms of his probation. Rather, the trial court interpreted precedent as establishing that the right to counsel in a misdemeanor case arises only when the misdemeanant is unconditionally ordered at the sentencing hearing to actually serve time in jail. Then, apparently relying on State v. Delacruz, 258 Kan. 129, 899 P.2d 1042 (1995), the district court found that the constitutionally-obtained uncounseled misdemeanor conviction could be used to enhance the severity of the current crime under K.S.A. 65-4162(a).
In Delacruz, the defendant challenged the criminal history score used to establish his Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA) sentence for a felony drug conviction. The criminal history calculation had included the aggregation of three prior misdemeanor battery convictions to score as one person felony, pursuant to K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4711(a). All three were alleged to be uncounseled municipal court convictions. For two of the misdemeanor convictions, the sentence was a fine, but no jail time. But for the third conviction, Delacruz was sentenced to 90 days in jail with the requirement that he serve 30 days, in addition to a fine. One of Delacruz' arguments on appeal was that the uncounseled misdemeanor convictions could not be collaterally used to enhance the sentence for the subsequent felony drug conviction because that would result in his serving additional jail time for the felony based solely upon the uncounseled misdemeanors, which were inherently unreliable convictions.
Delacruz began its analysis by pointing out that not all defendants charged with a misdemeanor have the constitutional right to counsel first enunciated in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 9 L. Ed. 2d. 799, 83 S. Ct. 792 (1963). In Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367, 373-74, 59 L. Ed. 2d 383, 99 S. Ct. 1158 (1979), the United States Supreme Court held that an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction is constitutionally valid if the offender is not incarcerated. Scott was based on Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 37, 32 L. Ed. 2d 530, 92 S. Ct. 2006 (1972), which had recognized that actual imprisonment is a penalty different in kind from fines or threats of imprisonment. Thus, actual imprisonment was the bright-line demarcation between constitutional and unconstitutional uncounseled misdemeanor convictions. See Delacruz, 258 Kan. at 132.
Delacruz then looked at the collateral use of uncounseled misdemeanor convictions, noting that Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 64 L. Ed. 2d 169, 100 S. Ct. 1585 (1980), was decided a year after Scott. In Baldasar, the United States Supreme Court held that a prior uncounseled misdemeanor theft conviction could not be used to elevate a subsequent theft conviction to a felony under a state's repeat offender severity level enhancement law, even though the prior conviction did not result in actual imprisonment. 446 U.S. at 227-28. Baldasar reasoned that the defendant received an increased term of imprisonment in the subsequent case solely because of the prior uncounseled conviction. 446 U.S. at 227.
However, the United States Supreme Court subsequently reversed itself in Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 128 L. Ed. 2d 745, 114 S. Ct. 1921 (1994). Adopting the rationale from the dissent in Baldasar, Nichols held that a prior uncounseled conviction which was valid under Scott, i.e., where the defendant had not been actually incarcerated, "may be relied upon to enhance the sentence for a subsequent offense, even though that [later] sentence entails imprisonment." Nichols, 511 U.S. at 746-47. Nichols reasoned that enhancement statutes, whether criminal history provisions of sentencing guidelines or recidivist statutes, do not change the penalty imposed for the earlier conviction, but rather only penalize the last offense committed by the defendant. 511 U.S. at 747. Further, the opinion stated that its holding was also consistent with the traditional understanding of the sentencing process in which judges are permitted to consider a wide variety of factors. Those factors include not only a defendant's prior convictions, but also "a defendant's past criminal behavior, even if no conviction resulted from that behavior." 511 U.S. at 747.
"We conclude the use of an uncounseled misdemeanor conviction that does not result in incarceration may be used in determining a defendant's criminal history under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines even though it has the effect of enhancing his or her sentence under the guidelines. [Citation omitted.] Prior uncounseled misdemeanor convictions under Scott are constitutional where no jail time is imposed. If such convictions are constitutional, those convictions should and do remain constitutional in subsequent proceedings under the KSGA. . . . While the uncounseled misdemeanor is used to enhance the present sentence, the sentence imposed does not increase the penalty for that misdemeanor, and the defendant is being punished based on his current charge--a charge and proceeding where he is represented by counsel." 258 Kan. at 135-36.
Applying its holding, Delacruz noted that the sentence on the third conviction included actual jail time, but that the record before the court did not definitively establish whether Delacruz had been represented by counsel or had waived his right to counsel. Therefore, the case was remanded to the district court for a hearing on that issue. The district court was instructed that if the State was unable to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Delacruz was either represented or had waived representation, the third battery conviction could not be included in his criminal history and the court must resentence him accordingly. In other words, while a constitutionally obtained uncounseled misdemeanor conviction can be used to enhance a subsequent sentence, an unconstitutionally obtained uncounseled misdemeanor conviction cannot be used for that collateral purpose. See Delacruz, 258 Kan. 129, Syl. ¶ 4.
After this court's decision in Delacruz, Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654, 152 L. Ed. 2d 888, 122 S. Ct. 1764 (2002), expanded, or at least clarified, the circumstances under which the right to counsel would arise in a misdemeanor prosecution. In that case, after Shelton was convicted of a misdemeanor without benefit of counsel, the trial court sentenced him to a 30-day jail term, but immediately suspended the jail term and placed him on probation for 2 years. On direct appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court opined that a suspended sentence constitutes a term of imprisonment within the meaning of Argersinger and Scott, even though actual incarceration is not immediate or inevitable. Accordingly, the Alabama court reversed and vacated the 30-day suspended jail time portion of the sentence, although it upheld Shelton's conviction and fine. The United States Supreme Court affirmed Alabama's decision, holding "that a suspended sentence that may 'end up in the actual deprivation of a person's liberty' may not be imposed unless the defendant was accorded 'the guiding hand of counsel' in the prosecution for the crime charged." Shelton, 535 U.S. at 658.
Our Court of Appeals acknowledged the holding in Shelton, but perceived that the narrow issue decided by that case was "whether a defendant may be jailed absent a counseled conviction." State v. Youngblood, No. 96,850, unpublished opinion filed April 25, 2008, slip op. at 6. The Court of Appeals focused on a portion of the Shelton majority opinion that distinguished Nichols as applying a less exacting standard. The rationale being that the sentencing court in Nichols' subsequent case could have imposed a more severe sentence based on evidence of the underlying conduct, even without the previous conviction. Given that Nichols was distinguishable from Shelton and that Delacruz was based on Nichols, the Court of Appeals opined that Delacruz was still good law after Shelton and mandated an affirmance of the district court. The Court of Appeals' reliance on an isolated portion of the Shelton opinion, which was lifted out of context, is misplaced.
First, the portion of Shelton quoted by the Court of Appeals was a supplementary rationale for rejecting the argument of amicus curiae that Nichols helped answer the question of whether the Sixth Amendment permits activation of a suspended sentence upon the defendant's violation of the terms of probation. 535 U.S. at 662-63. That is not the question before us. Moreover, the supplementary rationale proffered in the federal context would not be applicable under Kansas law, because evidence of Youngblood's underlying conduct, standing alone, would not have permitted sentence enhancement. K.S.A. 65-4162(a) requires a "prior conviction." Likewise, "[c]riminal history categories contained in the sentencing guidelines grid for nondrug crimes and the sentencing guidelines grid for drug crimes are based on . . . prior convictions." (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 21-4710(a). In short, the portion of Shelton upon which the Court of Appeals relied does not affect the case before us.
More importantly, the Court of Appeals' determination that Delacruz remains good law, by itself, does not answer the question before us. Delacruz, and its controlling authority, Nichols, focused on the collateral use of a valid, albeit uncounseled, prior misdemeanor conviction, i.e., whether collaterally using a constitutionally valid uncounseled conviction to enhance a subsequent felony sentence constituted a new and independent Sixth Amendment violation. However, the question that Youngblood presents is whether, pursuant to the holding in Shelton, his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated in municipal court when the prior conviction was initially obtained, prior to its collateral use. If so, Delacruz clearly would not have allowed the unconstitutional conviction to be collaterally used. 258 Kan. 129, Syl. ¶ 4 (permitting use of tainted prior conviction for sentence enhancement would undermine principle of Gideon). Moreover, it would be counterintuitive to find that a conviction's unconstitutionality could be cured through a subsequent collateral use.
We turn, then, to what Shelton tells us about the constitutionality of Youngblood's municipal court misdemeanor conviction. The critical holding in Shelton dealt with the stage at which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel arises for a misdemeanant receiving a suspended or probated jail time sentence. Youngblood, like Shelton, received a jail sentence which was suspended with probation.
"We think it plain that a [probation revocation] hearing so timed and structured cannot compensate for the absence of trial counsel, for it does not even address the key Sixth Amendment inquiry: whether the adjudication of guilt corresponding to the prison sentence is sufficiently reliable to permit incarceration. Deprived of counsel when tried, convicted, and sentenced, and unable to challenge the original judgment at a subsequent probation revocation hearing, a defendant in Shelton's circumstances faces incarceration on a conviction that has never been subjected to 'the crucible of meaningful adversarial testing,' United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 656[, 80 L. Ed. 2d 657, 104 S. Ct. 2039] (1984). The Sixth Amendment does not countenance this result." Shelton, 535 U.S. at 667.
Therefore, the majority was "[s]atisfied that Shelton is entitled to appointed counsel at the critical stage when his guilt or innocence of the charged crime is decided and his vulnerability to imprisonment is determined." 535 U.S. at 674. Likewise, Youngblood was entitled to counsel when the municipal court found him guilty and sentenced him to a prison term, even though the jail time was conditioned upon probation. The denial of that right to counsel renders the uncounseled misdemeanor conviction in municipal court unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment. Accordingly, the unconstitutional conviction could not be collaterally used in district court for sentence enhancement. Youngblood's conviction for felony possession of hallucinogenic drugs is reversed.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


(1) For those States for which programs were approved prior to November 5, 1990, 1 to 1 for any fiscal year.
(2) For programs approved after November 5, 1990, 4 to 1 for the first fiscal year, 2.3 to 1 for the second fiscal year, 1.5 to 1 for the third fiscal year, and 1 to 1 for each fiscal year thereafter.
The Secretary may make a grant to a coastal state under subsection (a) only if the Secretary finds that the management program of the coastal state meets all applicable requirements of this chapter and has been approved in accordance with subsection (d).
Grants under this section shall be allocated to coastal states with approved programs based on rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary which shall take into account the extent and nature of the shoreline and area covered by the program, population of the area, and other relevant factors. The Secretary shall establish, after consulting with the coastal states, maximum and minimum grants for any fiscal year to promote equity between coastal states and effective coastal management.
(1) The State has developed and adopted a management program for its coastal zone in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary, after notice, and with the opportunity of full participation by relevant Federal agencies, State agencies, local governments, regional organizations, port authorities, and other interested parties and individuals, public and private, which is adequate to carry out the purposes of this chapter and is consistent with the policy declared in section 1452 of this title.
(A) An identification of the boundaries of the coastal zone subject to the management program.
(B) A definition of what shall constitute permissible land uses and water uses within the coastal zone which have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters.
(C) An inventory and designation of areas of particular concern within the coastal zone.
(D) An identification of the means by which the State proposes to exert control over the land uses and water uses referred to in subparagraph (B), including a list of relevant State constitutional provisions, laws, regulations, and judicial decisions.
(E) Broad guidelines on priorities of uses in particular areas, including specifically those uses of lowest priority.
(F) A description of the organizational structure proposed to implement such management program, including the responsibilities and interrelationships of local, areawide, State, regional, and interstate agencies in the management process.
(G) A definition of the term "beach" and a planning process for the protection of, and access to, public beaches and other public coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical, esthetic, ecological, or cultural value.
(H) A planning process for energy facilities likely to be located in, or which may significantly affect, the coastal zone, including a process for anticipating the management of the impacts resulting from such facilities.
(I) A planning process for assessing the effects of, and studying and evaluating ways to control, or lessen the impact of, shoreline erosion, and to restore areas adversely affected by such erosion.
(III) may not take any action within the 30-day period to implement the management program decision.
(4) The State has held public hearings in the development of the management program.
(5) The management program and any changes thereto have been reviewed and approved by the Governor of the State.
(6) The Governor of the State has designated a single State agency to receive and administer grants for implementing the management program.
(7) The State is organized to implement the management program.
(8) The management program provides for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in planning for, and managing the coastal zone, including the siting of facilities such as energy facilities which are of greater than local significance. In the case of energy facilities, the Secretary shall find that the State has given consideration to any applicable national or interstate energy plan or program.
(9) The management program includes procedures whereby specific areas may be designated for the purpose of preserving or restoring them for their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, or esthetic values.
(B) to acquire fee simple and less than fee simple interests in land, waters, and other property through condemnation or other means when necessary to achieve conformance with the management program.
(A) State establishment of criteria and standards for local implementation, subject to administrative review and enforcement.
(B) Direct State land and water use planning and regulation.
(C) State administrative review for consistency with the management program of all development plans, projects, or land and water use regulations, including exceptions and variances thereto, proposed by any State or local authority or private developer, with power to approve or disapprove after public notice and an opportunity for hearings.
(12) The management program contains a method of assuring that local land use and water use regulations within the coastal zone do not unreasonably restrict or exclude land uses and water uses of regional benefit.
(B) specific and enforceable standards to protect such resources.
(14) The management program provides for public participation in permitting processes, consistency determinations, and other similar decisions.
(15) The management program provides a mechanism to ensure that all State agencies will adhere to the program.
(16) The management program contains enforceable policies and mechanisms to implement the applicable requirements of the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program of the State required by section 1455b of this title.
(1) The State shall promptly notify the Secretary of any proposed amendment, modification, or other program change and submit it for the Secretary's approval. The Secretary may suspend all or part of any grant made under this section pending State submission of the proposed amendments, modification, or other program change.
(2) Within 30 days after the date the Secretary receives any proposed amendment, the Secretary shall notify the State whether the Secretary approves or disapproves the amendment, or whether the Secretary finds it is necessary to extend the review of the proposed amendment for a period not to exceed 120 days after the date the Secretary received the proposed amendment. The Secretary may extend this period only as necessary to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). If the Secretary does not notify the coastal state that the Secretary approves or disapproves the amendment within that period, then the amendment shall be conclusively presumed as approved.
(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a coastal state may not implement any amendment, modification, or other change as part of its approved management program unless the amendment, modification, or other change is approved by the Secretary under this subsection.
(B) The Secretary, after determining on a preliminary basis, that an amendment, modification, or other change which has been submitted for approval under this subsection is likely to meet the program approval standards in this section, may permit the State to expend funds awarded under this section to begin implementing the proposed amendment, modification, or change. This preliminary approval shall not extend for more than 6 months and may not be renewed. A proposed amendment, modification, or change which has been given preliminary approval and is not finally approved under this paragraph shall not be considered an enforceable policy for purposes of section 1456 of this title.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, referred to in subsec. (e)(2), is Pub. L. 91–190, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852 , as amended, which is classified generally to chapter 55 (§4321 et seq.) of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4321 of Title 42 and Tables.
1992-Subsecs. (a) to (d), (e)(2), (3)(A). Pub. L. 102–587 substituted "coastal state" and "coastal states" for "coastal State" and "coastal States", respectively, wherever appearing, and substituted period for semicolon at end of subsec. (b).
1990-Pub. L. 101–508 amended section generally, substituting present provisions for provisions which authorized grants for administering a state management program, provided for a ratio of Federal to State contributions, allocation of grants, program requirements, required authority for management of coastal zone, required findings prior to approval of grants, allocation to other political subdivisions, program modification, segmental development, and inventory and designation of areas of national significance and standards for protection of coastal resources.
1986-Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–272, §6043(b)(1), amended introductory text generally, which prior to amendment read as follows: "The Secretary may make grants to any coastal state for not more than 80 per centum of the costs of administering such state's management program if the Secretary-".
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99–272, §6043(c), inserted ", and subject to the following conditions:" in provisions preceding par. (1), added pars. (1) to (3), and struck out provision that except with respect to any management program amendment which was made before Oct. 1, 1978, for the purpose of complying with the requirements of section 1454(b)(7), (8) and (9) of this title, no grant was to be made under this section to any coastal state after the date of such amendment or modification, until the Secretary approved such amendment or modification.
1980-Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–464, §5(a)(1), in opening text, substituted "The Secretary may make grants" for "The Secretary may make a grant annually", added par. (3), and provision following par. (3) which defined the costs of administering a management program.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 96–464, §5(2), struck out proviso that no annual grant made under this section shall be in excess of $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1975, in excess of $2,500,000 for fiscal year 1976, and in excess of $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1977.
Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 96–464, §5(a)(3), added subsec. (i).
1976-Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–370, §5(1), raised the federal share of grants to 80 per centum from 662/3 per centum of the cost of administering a state's management program, substituted requirement that Secretary approve state's management program in accordance with subsecs. (c), (d), and (e) and find that such programs meet requirements under section 1454(b) of this title for requirement that Secretary approve state's management programs in accordance with subsec. (c), and struck out proviso that Federal funds from other sources shall not be used to pay the state's share of costs.
Subsec. (c)(2)(B). Pub. L. 94–370, §5(2), inserted provisions that mechanism not be found to be effective by Secretary until management agency meets certain requirement such as notice to affected zoning authority, 30-day period for zoning authority to respond with recommendations, and action to be taken by management agency where zoning authority does submit recommendations.
Subsec. (c)(8). Pub. L. 94–370, §5(3), inserted "planning for, and" before "in the siting of" and reference to energy facilities in, or which significantly affect, such state's coastal zone and inserted proviso that in the case of energy facilities, the Secretary shall find that the state has given consideration to any applicable interstate energy plan or program.
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 94–370, §5(4), inserted requirement that except for pre-Oct. 1, 1978 amendments of management programs, for purposes of complying with section 1454(b)(7), (8), and (9) of this title, no grant shall be made under this section to any coastal state after the date of an amendment until approved by Secretary.
1975-Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 93–612 substituted provisos establishing maximum amount of annual grant for fiscal years 1975, 1976, and 1977, establishing a minimum of 1 per centum of the total appropriated amount, and providing for waiver of the 1 per centum minimum upon request of the coastal State, for proviso limiting an annual administrative grant to a maximum of 10 per centum and a minimum of 1 per centum of the total appropriated amount.
Pub. L. 96–464, §5(b), Oct. 17, 1980, 94 Stat. 2062 , provided that: "The amendments made by subsection (a)(1) and (2) of this section [amending this section] apply with respect to grants made after September 30, 1980, under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 [this section] and, within two hundred and seventy days after such date, the Secretary of Commerce shall issue regulations relating to the administration of subsection (a) of such section 306 (as so amended by such subsection (a)(1)."
"(2) that the program complies with section 306(d)(16) of that Act, by not later than 30 months after the date of publication of final guidance under section 6217(g) of this Act [16 U.S.C. 1455b(g)]."


The Supreme Court decided United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc., et al.on May 31, 2016. The Justices voted this case unanimously, 8-0, holding that when the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) makes an approved jurisdictional determination that states whether there is a presence or absence of waters of the United States on a particular property it is considered a final action that is judicially reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Hawkes decision will impact Florida since Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Florida is made up of wetlands for the most part, and for further development, a 404 permit is required. People who want to develop in Florida will have to go through the process of getting a final order by the US Army Corps of Engineers; although the order is appealable, it may slow down development of the wetlands. This is a positive impact since the wetlands have been found to be very important to the environment and need to be protected from too much development. However, since the order is appealable, no penalties can be distributed until the final decision has been made after appeal, which may allow people to violate the rules of discharging materials into the wetlands until the whole process is over.
The Clean Water Act regulates “the discharge of any pollutant” into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U.S.C. §§1311(a), 1362(7),(12). Since the determination of whether there are “waters of the United States” is a difficult task, the Corps allow property owners to obtain a standalone “jurisdictional determination” (JD) specifying whether a particular property contains “waters of the United States.” 33 CFR §331.2. An “approved” JD is considered an administratively appealable “final agency action,” §§320.1(a)(6), 331.2, and is binding for five years on the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency. 33 CFR pt. 331, App. C; EPA, Memorandum of Agreement: Exemptions Under Section 404(F) of the Clean Water Act §VI-A.
If there is a discharge of any pollutant into waters covered by the Clean Water Act without a permit from the Corps, there can be substantial criminal and civil penalties as a consequence. However, these permits are not easy to come by, and for a specialized “individual” permit it takes an estimate of over two years and more than $250k. Even for a “general” permit it will take almost a year and more than $20k. The Corps determine whether a property contains “waters of the United States” by issuing JDs on a case-by-case basis. There are two types of JDs, the first being preliminary JD, which advises a property owner “that there may be waters of the United States on a parcel,” and an approved JD, which definitively states “the presence or absence” of such waters. §331.2. An approved JD can be administratively appealed and are defined by regulation to “constitute a Corps final agency action.” §§320.1(a)(6), 331.2. They are binding for five years on the Corps and the EPA, which share the authority to enforce the Clean Water Act.
The respondents in Hawkes were three companies that engaged in mining peat in Marshall County, Minnesota. Peat can have a significant environmental and ecological impact, and therefore it is regulated by both federal and state environmental protection agencies, see, e.g., Minn. Stat. §103G.231 (2014).
In December 2010, respondents applied to the Corps for a Section 404 permit authorizing “the discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters at specified disposal sites.” 33 U.S.C. §1344(a). The Corps require numerous assessments of various features of the property, which respondents’ estimate would cost more than $100,000. App. 16-17, 31-35. In February 2012, the Corps issued an approved JD stating that the property contained “water of the United States” because its wetlands had a “significant nexus” to the Red River of the North, located some 120 miles away. Id., at 13, 18, 20.
In order for agency action to be “final” under the APA there is a two-prong test. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997). The first prong being that the action must mark the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process. And second, the action must be one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow. Id., at 177-178. The Corps issuing an approved JD shows that the property contains waters that are protected since they are considered “waters of the United States.” The Court has long held that parties need not await the enforcement proceedings before challenging a final agency action where such proceedings carry the risk of “serious criminal and civil penalties.” Abbott, 387 U.S. at 153.
The decision made by the Court clearly shows that final actions by the Corps are appealable. When there are determinations on whether there are “waters of the United States” present, even though that determination may be final, it can be appealed before any penalties are distributed.


Respondent Hood had an outstanding balance on student loans guaranteed by petitioner Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation (TSAC), a state entity, at the time she filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Hood's general discharge did not cover her student loans, as she did not list them and they are only dischargeable if a bankruptcy court determines that excepting the debt from the order would be an "undue hardship" on the debtor, 11 U. S. C. §523(a)(8). Hood subsequently reopened the petition, seeking an "undue hardship" determination. As prescribed by Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001(6), 7003, and 7004, she filed a complaint and, later, an amended complaint, and served them with a summons on TSAC and others. The Bankruptcy Court denied TSAC's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, holding that 11 U. S. C. §106(a) abrogated the State's Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed, as did the Sixth Circuit, which held that the Bankruptcy Clause gave Congress the authority to abrogate state sovereign immunity in §106(a). This Court granted certiorari to determine whether the Bankruptcy Clause grants Congress such authority.
Held: Because the Bankruptcy Court's discharge of a student loan debt does not implicate a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity, this Court does not reach the question on which certiorari was granted. Pp. 4-13.
508. A debt's discharge by a bankruptcy court is similarly an in rem proceeding. The court has exclusive jurisdiction over a debtor's property, wherever located, and over the estate. Once debts are discharged, a creditor who did not submit a proof of claim will be unable to collect on his unsecured loans. A bankruptcy court is able to provide the debtor a fresh start, even if all of his creditors do not participate, because the court's jurisdiction is premised on the debtor and his estate, not on the creditors. Because the court's jurisdiction is premised on the res, however, a nonparticipating creditor cannot be personally liable. States, whether or not they choose to participate in the proceeding, are bound by a bankruptcy court's discharge order no less than other creditors, see, e.g., New York v. Irving Trust Co., 288 U. S. 329, 333. And when the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over the res is unquestioned, the exercise of its in rem jurisdiction to discharge the debt does not infringe a State's sovereignty. TSAC argues, however, that the individualized process by which student loan debts are discharged unconstitutionally infringes its sovereignty. If a debtor does not affirmatively secure §523(a)(8)'s "undue hardship" determination, States choosing not to submit themselves to the court's jurisdiction might receive some benefit: The debtor's personal liability on the loan may survive the discharge. TSAC misunderstands the proceeding's fundamental nature when it claims that Congress, by making a student loan debt presumptively nondischargeable and singling it out for an individualized determination, has authorized a suit against a State. The bankruptcy court's jurisdiction is premised on the res, not the persona; that States were granted the presumptive benefit of nondischargeability does not alter the court's underlying authority. A debtor does not seek damages or affirmative relief from a State or subject an unwilling State to a coercive judicial process by seeking to discharge his debts. Indeed, this Court has endorsed individual determinations of States' interests within the federal courts' in rem jurisdiction, e.g., Deep Sea Research, supra. Although bankruptcy and admiralty are specialized areas of the law, there is no reason why the exercise of federal courts' in rem bankruptcy jurisdiction is more threatening to state sovereignty than the exercise of their in rem admiralty jurisdiction. Pp. 4-9.
(b) With regard to the procedure used in this case, the Bankruptcy Rules require a debtor to file an adversary proceeding against the State to discharge student loan debts. While this is part of the original bankruptcy case and within the bankruptcy court's in rem jurisdiction, it requires the service of a summons and a complaint, see Rules 7001(6), 7003, and 7004. The issuance of process is normally an indignity to a State's sovereignty, because its purpose is to establish personal jurisdiction; but the court's in rem jurisdiction allows it to adjudicate the debtors' discharge claim without in personam jurisdiction over the State. Section 523(a)(8) does not require a summons, and absent Rule 7001(6) a debtor could proceed by motion, which would raise no constitutional concern. There is no reason why service of a summons, which in this case is indistinguishable in practical effect from a motion, should be given dispositive weight. Dismissal of the complaint is not appropriate here where the court has in rem jurisdiction and has not attempted to adjudicate any claims outside of that jurisdiction. This case is unlike an adversary proceeding by a bankruptcy trustee seeking to recover property in the State's hands on the grounds that the transfer was a voidable preference. Even if this Court were to hold that Congress lacked the ability to abrogate state sovereign immunity under the Bankruptcy Clause, the Bankruptcy Court would still have authority to make the undue hardship determination Hood seeks. Thus, this Court declines to decide whether a bankruptcy court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a State would be valid under the Eleventh Amendment. If the Bankruptcy Court on remand exceeds its in rem jurisdiction, TSAC would be free to challenge the court's authority. Pp. 10-13.
319 F. 3d 755, affirmed and remanded.
Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Souter, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined.
Article I, §8, cl. 4, of the Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power "[t]o establish . . . uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States." We granted certiorari to determine whether this Clause grants Congress the authority to abrogate state sovereign immunity from private suits. Because we conclude that a proceeding initiated by a debtor to determine the dischargeability of a student loan debt is not a suit against the State for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment, we affirm the Court of Appeals' judgment, and we do not reach the question on which certiorari was granted.
Petitioner, Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation (TSAC), is a governmental corporation created by the Tennessee Legislature to administer student assistance programs. Tenn. Code Ann. §49-4-201 (2002). TSAC guarantees student loans made to residents of Tennessee and to nonresidents who are either enrolled in an eligible school in Tennessee or make loans through an approved Tennessee lender. §49-4-203.
Between July 1988 and February 1990, respondent, Pamela Hood, a resident of Tennessee, signed promissory notes for educational loans guaranteed by TSAC. In February 1999, Hood filed a "no asset" Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee; at the time of the filing, her student loans had an outstanding balance of $4,169.31. TSAC did not participate in the proceeding, but Sallie Mae Service, Inc. (Sallie Mae), submitted a proof of claim to the Bankruptcy Court, which it subsequently assigned to TSAC.1 The Bankruptcy Court granted Hood a general discharge in June 1999. See 11 U. S. C. §727(a).
Hood did not list her student loans in the bankruptcy proceeding, and the general discharge did not cover them. See §727(b) (providing that a discharge under §727(a) discharges the debtor from all prepetition debts except as listed in §523(a)); §523(a)(8) (providing that student loans guaranteed by governmental units are not included in a general discharge order unless the bankruptcy court determines that excepting the debt from the order would impose an "undue hardship" on the debtor). In September 1999, Hood reopened her bankruptcy petition for the limited purpose of seeking a determination by the Bankruptcy Court that her student loans were dischargeable as an "undue hardship" pursuant to §523(a)(8). As prescribed by the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Hood filed a complaint against the United States of America, the Department of Education, and Sallie Mae, see Fed. Rules Bkrtcy. Proc. 7001(6) and 7003, and later filed an amended complaint in which she included TSAC and University Account Services as additional defendants and deleted Sallie Mae. The complaint and the amended complaint were served along with a summons on each of the named parties. See Rule 7004.
In response, TSAC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.2 The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion, holding that 11 U. S. C. §106(a) was a valid abrogation of TSAC's sovereign immunity. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-62. TSAC took an interlocutory appeal, see Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139, 147 (1993), and a unanimous Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit affirmed, 262 B. R. 412 (2001). TSAC appealed the Panel's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. That court affirmed, holding that the States ceded their immunity from private suits in bankruptcy in the Constitutional Convention, and therefore, the Bankruptcy Clause, U. S. Const., Art. 1, §8, cl. 4, provided Congress with the necessary authority to abrogate state sovereign immunity in 11 U. S. C. §106(a). 319 F. 3d 755, 767 (2003). One judge concurred in the judgment, concluding that TSAC waived its sovereign immunity when it accepted Sallie Mae's proof of claim.3 Id., at 768. We granted certiorari, 539 U. S. 986 (2003), and now affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Because we hold that a bankruptcy court's discharge of a student loan debt does not implicate a State's Eleventh Amendment immunity, we do not reach the broader question addressed by the Court of Appeals.
By its terms, the Eleventh Amendment precludes suits "in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." For over a century, however, we have recognized that the States' sovereign immunity is not limited to the literal terms of the Eleventh Amendment. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890). Although the text of the Amendment refers only to suits against a State by citizens of another State, we have repeatedly held that an unconsenting State also is immune from suits by its own citizens. See, e.g., id., at 15; Duhne v. New Jersey, 251 U. S. 311, 313 (1920); Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 322 U. S. 47, 51 (1944); Employees of Dept. of Public Health and Welfare of Mo. v. Department of Public Health and Welfare of Mo., 411 U. S. 279, 280 (1973); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 662-663 (1974); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 55 (1996).
States, nonetheless, may still be bound by some judicial actions without their consent. In California v. Deep Sea Research, Inc., 523 U. S. 491 (1998), we held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal jurisdiction over in rem admiralty actions when the State is not in possession of the property. In that case, a private corporation located a historic shipwreck, the S. S. Brother Jonathan, in California's territorial waters. The corporation filed an in rem action in federal court seeking rights to the wreck and its cargo. The State of California intervened, arguing that it possessed title to the wreck and that its sovereign immunity precluded the court from adjudicating its rights. While acknowledging that the Eleventh Amendment might constrain federal courts' admiralty jurisdiction in some instances, id., at 503 (citing Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490 (1921) (New York I); Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 503 (1921) (New York II); Florida Dept. of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc., 458 U. S. 670 (1982)), we held that the States' sovereign immunity did not prohibit in rem admiralty actions in which the State did not possess the res, 255 U. S. 216 (1921)).
The discharge of a debt by a bankruptcy court is similarly an in rem proceeding. See Gardner v. New Jersey, 329 U. S. 565, 574 (1947); Straton v. New, 283 U. S. 318, 320-321 (1931); Hanover Nat. Bank v. Moyses, 186 U. S. 181, 192 (1902); New Lamp Chimney Co. v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co., 91 U. S. 656, 662 (1876). Bankruptcy courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a debtor's property, wherever located, and over the estate. See 28 U. S. C. §1334(e). In a typical voluntary bankruptcy proceeding under Chapter 7, the debtor files a petition for bankruptcy in which he lists his debts or his creditors, Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 1007(a)(1); the petition constitutes an order for relief, 11 U. S. C. §301. The court clerk notifies the debtor's creditors of the order for relief, see Rule 2002(l), and if a creditor wishes to participate in the debtor's assets, he files a proof of claim, Rule 3002(a); see 11 U. S. C. §726. If a creditor chooses not to submit a proof of claim, once the debts are discharged, the creditor will be unable to collect on his unsecured loans. Rule 3002(a); see 11 U. S. C. §726. The discharge order releases a debtor from personal liability with respect to any discharged debt by voiding any past or future judgments on the debt and by operating as an injunction to prohibit creditors from attempting to collect or to recover the debt. §§524(a)(1), (2); 3 W. Norton, Bankruptcy Law and Practice 2d §48:1, p. 48-3 (1998) (hereinafter Norton).
A bankruptcy court is able to provide the debtor a fresh start in this manner, despite the lack of participation of all of his creditors, because the court's jurisdiction is premised on the debtor and his estate, and not on the creditors. In re Collins, 173 F. 3d 924, 929 (CA4 1999) ("A federal court's jurisdiction over the dischargeability of debt ... derives not from jurisdiction over the state or other creditors, but rather from jurisdiction over debtors and their estates" (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Gardner, supra, at 572; In re Ellett, 254 F. 3d 1135, 1141 (CA9 2001); Texas v. Walker, 142 F. 3d 813, 822 (CA5 1998). A bankruptcy court's in rem jurisdiction permits it to "determin[e] all claims that anyone, whether named in the action or not, has to the property or thing in question. The proceeding is 'one against the world.' " 16 J. Moore, et al., Moore's Federal Practice §108.70, p. 108-106 (3d ed. 2004). Because the court's jurisdiction is premised on the res, however, a nonparticipating creditor cannot be subjected to personal liability. See Freeman v. Alderson, 119 U. S. 185, 188-189 (1886) (citing Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 308 (1870)).
Under our longstanding precedent, States, whether or not they choose to participate in the proceeding, are bound by a bankruptcy court's discharge order no less than other creditors. In New York v. Irving Trust Co., 288 U. S. 329 (1933), we sustained an order of the Bankruptcy Court which barred the State of New York's tax claim because it was not filed within the time fixed for the filing of claims. We held that "[i]f a state desires to participate in the assets of a bankrupt, she must submit to the appropriate requirements." Id., at 333; see also Gardner, supra, at 574 (holding that a State waives its sovereign immunity by filing a proof of claim). And in Van Huffel v. Harkelrode, 284 U. S. 225, 228-229 (1931), we held that the Bankruptcy Court had the authority to sell a debtor's property "free and clear" of a State's tax lien. At least when the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over the res is unquestioned, cf. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30 (1992), our cases indicate that the exercise of its in rem jurisdiction to discharge a debt does not infringe state sovereignty.4 Cf. Hoffman v. Connecticut Dept. of Income Maintenance, 492 U. S. 96, 102 (1989) (plurality opinion) (applying Eleventh Amendment analysis where a Bankruptcy Court sought to issue a money judgment against a nonconsenting State).
TSAC concedes that States are generally bound by a bankruptcy court's discharge order, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 17, but argues that the particular process by which student loan debts are discharged unconstitutionally infringes its sovereignty. Student loans used to be presumptively discharged in a general discharge. But in 1976, Congress provided a significant benefit to the States by making it more difficult for debtors to discharge student loan debts guaranteed by States. Education Amendments of 1976, §439A(a), 90 Stat. 2141 (codified at 20 U. S. C. §1087-3 (1976 ed.), repealed by Pub. L. 95-598, §317, 92 Stat. 2678). That benefit is currently governed by 11 U. S. C. §523(a)(8), which provides that student loan debts guaranteed by governmental units are not included in a general discharge order unless excepting the debt from the order would impose an "undue hardship" on the debtor. See also §727(b) (providing that a discharge under §727(a) discharges the debtor from all prepetition debts except as listed in §523(a)).
Section 523(a)(8) is "self-executing." Norton §47:52, at 47-137 to 47-138; see also S. Rep. No. 95-989, p. 79 (1978). Unless the debtor affirmatively secures a hardship determination, the discharge order will not include a student loan debt. Norton §47:52, at 47-137 to 47-138. Thus, the major difference between the discharge of a student loan debt and the discharge of most other debts is that governmental creditors, including States, that choose not to submit themselves to the court's jurisdiction might still receive some benefit: The debtor's personal liability on the loan may survive the discharge.
It is this change that TSAC contends infringes state sovereignty. Tr. of Oral Arg. 15-16. By making a student loan debt presumptively nondischargeable and singling it out for an "individualized adjudication," ibid., TSAC argues that Congress has authorized a suit against a State. But TSAC misunderstands the fundamental nature of the proceeding.
No matter how difficult Congress has decided to make the discharge of student loan debt, the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction is premised on the res, not on the persona; that States were granted the presumptive benefit of nondischargeability does not alter the court's underlying authority. A debtor does not seek monetary damages or any affirmative relief from a State by seeking to discharge a debt; nor does he subject an unwilling State to a coercive judicial process. He seeks only a discharge of his debts.
Indeed, we have previously endorsed individualized determinations of States' interests within the federal courts' in rem jurisdiction. In Van Huffel, we affirmed the bankruptcy courts' power to sell property free from incumbrances, including States' liens, and approvingly noted that some courts had chosen specifically to discharge States' liens for taxes. 523 U. S. 491 (1998), also involved an individualized in rem adjudication in which a State claimed an interest, as have other in rem admiralty cases involving sovereigns, e.g., The Davis, 10 Wall., at 19; The Siren, 7 Wall. 152, 159 (1869); The Pesaro, 255 U. S., at 219. Although both bankruptcy and admiralty are specialized areas of the law, we see no reason why the exercise of the federal courts' in rem bankruptcy jurisdiction is more threatening to state sovereignty than the exercise of their in rem admiralty jurisdiction.
Lastly, we deal with the procedure that was used in this case. Creditors generally are not entitled to personal service before a bankruptcy court may discharge a debt. Hanover Nat. Bank, 186 U. S., at 192. Because student loan debts are not automatically dischargeable, however, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure provide creditors greater procedural protection. See Fed. Rules Bkrtcy. Proc. 7001(6), 7003, and 7004. The current Bankruptcy Rules require the debtor to file an "adversary proceeding" against the State in order to discharge his student loan debt. The proceeding is considered part of the original bankruptcy case, see 10 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ ;7003.02 (15th ed. rev. 2003), and still within the bankruptcy court's in rem jurisdiction as discussed above. But, as prescribed by the Rules, an "adversary proceeding" requires the service of a summons and a complaint. Rules 7001(6), 7003, and 7004.
Because this "adversary proceeding" has some similarities to a traditional civil trial, Justice Thomas contends that the Bankruptcy Court cannot make an undue hardship determination without infringing TSAC's sovereignty under Federal Maritime Comm'n v. South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 U. S. 743 (2002). See post, at 2-6. In Federal Maritime Comm'n, we held that the Eleventh Amendment precluded a private party from haling an unconsenting State into a proceeding before the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC). We noted that we have applied a presumption since Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890), "that the Constitution was not intended to 'rais[e] up' any proceedings against the States that were 'anomalous and unheard of when the Constitution was adopted.' " 535 U. S., at 755. Because agency adjudications were unheard of at the time of the founding, we had to determine whether the FMC proceeding was "the type of proceedin[g] from which the Framers would have thought the States possessed immunity when they agreed to enter the Union." Id., at 756. Noting the substantial similarities between a proceeding before the FMC and one before an Article III court, we concluded that the Hans presumption applied, see 535 U. S., at 756-763, and that the Eleventh Amendment therefore precluded private suits in such a forum, id., at 769.
In this case, however, there is no need to engage in a comparative analysis to determine whether the adjudication would be an affront to States' sovereignty. As noted above, we have long held that the bankruptcy courts' exercise of in rem jurisdiction is not such an offense. Supra, at 6-9. Nor is there any dispute that, if the Bankruptcy Court had to exercise personal jurisdiction over TSAC, such an adjudication would implicate the Eleventh Amendment. Our precedent has drawn a distinction between in rem and in personam jurisdiction, even when the underlying proceedings are, for the most part, identical. Thus, whether an in rem adjudication in a bankruptcy court is similar to civil litigation in a district court is irrelevant. If Justice Thomas' interpretation of Federal Maritime Comm'n were adopted, Deep Sea Research, Van Huffle, and Irving Trust, all of which involved proceedings resembling traditional civil adjudications, would likely have to be overruled. We are not willing to take such a step.
The issuance of process, nonetheless, is normally an indignity to the sovereignty of a State because its purpose is to establish personal jurisdiction over the State. We noted in Seminole Tribe, "The Eleventh Amendment does not exist solely in order to prevent federal-court judgments that must be paid out of a State's treasury; it also serves to avoid the indignity of subjecting a State to the coercive process of judicial tribunals at the instance of private parties." 517 U. S., at 58 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, however, the Bankruptcy Court's in rem jurisdiction allows it to adjudicate the debtor's discharge claim without in personam jurisdiction over the State. See 4A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §1070, pp. 280-281 (3d ed. 2002) (noting jurisdiction over the person is irrelevant if the court has jurisdiction over the property). Hood does not argue that the court should exercise personal jurisdiction; all she wants is a determination of the dischargeability of her debt. The text of §523(a)(8) does not require a summons, and absent Rule 7001(6) a debtor could proceed by motion, see Rule 9014 ("[I]n a contested matter ... not otherwise governed by these rules, relief shall be requested by motion"), which would raise no constitutional concern. Hood concedes that even if TSAC ignores the summons and chooses not to participate in the proceeding the Bankruptcy Court cannot discharge her debt without making an undue hardship determination. Tr. of Oral Arg. 33-34.
We see no reason why the service of a summons, which in this case is indistinguishable in practical effect from a motion, should be given dispositive weight. As we said in Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U. S. 261, 270 (1997), "[t]he real interests served by the Eleventh Amendment are not to be sacrificed to elementary mechanics of captions and pleading." See New York I, 256 U. S., at 500 (a suit against a State "is to be determined not by the mere names of the titular parties but by the essential nature and effect of the proceeding, as it appears from the entire record"). To conclude that the issuance of a summons, which is required only by the Rules, precludes Hood from exercising her statutory right to an undue hardship determination would give the Rules an impermissible effect. 28 U. S. C. §2075 ("[The Bankruptcy Rules] shall not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right"). And there is no reason to take such a step. TSAC sought only to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction in the Bankruptcy Court. Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction in No. 99-0847 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD Tenn.), pp. 1-2. Clearly dismissal of the complaint is not appropriate as the court has in rem jurisdiction over the matter, and the court here has not attempted to adjudicate any claims outside of that jurisdiction. The case before us is thus unlike an adversary proceeding by the bankruptcy trustee seeking to recover property in the hands of the State on the grounds that the transfer was a voidable preference. Even if we were to hold that Congress lacked the ability to abrogate state sovereign immunity under the Bankruptcy Clause, as TSAC urges us to do, the Bankruptcy Court would still have the authority to make the undue hardship determination sought by Hood.
is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Justice Souter, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, concurring.
I join in the Court's opinion, save for any implicit approval of the holding in Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44 (1996).
We granted certiorari in this case to decide whether Congress has the authority to abrogate state sovereign immunity under the Bankruptcy Clause. 539 U. S. 986 (2003). Instead of answering this question, the Court addresses a more difficult one regarding the extent to which a bankruptcy court's exercise of its in rem jurisdiction could offend the sovereignty of a creditor-State. I recognize that, as the Court concludes today, the in rem nature of bankruptcy proceedings might affect the ability of a debtor to obtain, by motion, a bankruptcy court determination that affects a creditor-State's rights, but I would not reach this difficult question here. Even if the Bankruptcy Court could have exercised its in rem jurisdiction to make an undue hardship determination by motion, I cannot ignore the fact that the determination in this case was sought pursuant to an adversary proceeding. Under Federal Maritime Comm'n v. South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 U. S. 743 (2002), the adversary proceeding here clearly constitutes a suit against the State for sovereign immunity purposes. I would thus reach the easier question presented and conclude that Congress lacks authority to abrogate state sovereign immunity under the Bankruptcy Clause.
The Court avoids addressing respondent's principal argument--which was the basis for the Court of Appeals' decision and which this Court granted certiorari in order to address--namely, that Congress possesses the power under the Bankruptcy Clause to abrogate a State's sovereign immunity from suit. Instead, the Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals based on respondent's alternative argument, ante, at 3, that the Bankruptcy Court's decision was "an appropriate exercise of [its] in rem jurisdiction," Brief for Respondent 35. Although respondent advanced this argument in the proceedings before the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit, Brief for Appellee in No. 00-8062, p. 8, she declined to do so in the Court of Appeals. Indeed, before that court, respondent relied entirely on Congress' ability to abrogate state sovereign immunity under the Bankruptcy Clause rather than on any in rem theory because, under her reading of Missouri v. Fiske, 290 U. S. 18 (1933), "there is no in rem exception to a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity" in bankruptcy. Brief for Appellee in No. 01-5769 (CA6), p. 24. Furthermore, respondent did not raise the in rem argument in her brief in opposition before this Court. Under this Court's Rule 15.2, we may deem this argument waived. Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U. S. 61, 75, n. 13 (1996). And, we should do so here both because the argument is irrelevant to this case, and because the in rem question is both complex and uncertain, see Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U. S. ___ (2004).
In Federal Maritime Comm'n, the South Carolina Maritime Services, Inc. (SCMS), filed a complaint with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), an independent agency, alleging that a state-run port had violated the Shipping Act of 1984, 46 U. S. C. App. §1701 et seq. We assumed without deciding that the FMC does not exercise "judicial power," Federal Maritime Comm'n, 535 U. S., at 754, and nonetheless held that state sovereign immunity barred the adjudication of the SCMS' complaint. Id., at 769.
Federal Maritime Comm'n turned on the "overwhelming" similarities between FMC proceedings and civil litigation in federal courts. Id., at 759. For example, FMC's rules governing pleadings and discovery are very similar to the analogous Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id., at 757-758. Moreover, we noted that "the role of the [administrative law judge], the impartial officer designated to hear a case, is similar to that of an Article III judge." Id., at 758 (footnote and citation omitted). Based on these similarities, we held that, for purposes of state sovereign immunity, the adjudication before the FMC was indistinguishable from an adjudication in an Article III tribunal. See id., at 760-761. Thus, Federal Maritime Comm'n recognized that if the Framers would have found it an "impermissible affront to a State's dignity to be required to answer the complaints of private parties in federal courts," the Framers would have found it equally impermissible to compel States to do so simply because the adjudication takes place in an Article I rather than an Article III court. Ibid.
Although the Court ignores Federal Maritime Comm'n altogether, its reasoning applies to this case. The similarities between adversary proceedings in bankruptcy and federal civil litigation are striking. Indeed, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern adversary proceedings in substantial part. The proceedings are commenced by the filing of a complaint, Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 7003; process is served, Rule 7005; the opposing party is required to file an answer, Rule 7007; and the opposing party can file counterclaims against the movant, Rule 7013. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 applies to the parties' pleadings. Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 7008. Even the form of the parties' pleadings must comply with the federal rules for civil litigation. Rule 7010. "Likewise, discovery in [adversary proceedings] largely mirrors discovery in federal civil litigation." Federal Maritime Comm'n, supra, at 758. See Fed. Rules Bkrtcy. Proc. 7026-7037 (applying Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 26-37 to adversary proceedings). And, when a party fails to answer or appear in an adversary proceeding, the Federal Rule governing default judgments applies. Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc.7055 (adopting Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 55).
In spite of these similarities, the Court concludes that, because the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction is premised on the res, the issuance of process in this case, as opposed to all others, does not subject an unwilling State to a coercive judicial process. Ante, at 10. The Court also views the adversary proceeding in this case differently than a typical adversary proceeding because, absent Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 7001(6), the Court concludes that a debtor could obtain an undue hardship determination by motion consistent with a bankruptcy court's in rem jurisdiction and consistent with the Constitution. See ante, at 11.
Critically, however, the Court fails to explain why, simply because it asserts that this determination could have been made by motion, the adversary proceeding utilized in this case is somehow less offensive to state sovereignty. After all, "[t]he very object and purpose of the 11th Amendment [is] to prevent the indignity of subjecting a State to the coercive process of judicial tribunals at the instance of private parties." In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 505 (1887); Federal Maritime Comm'n, supra, at 760; Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 748 (1999); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 58 (1996). The fact that an alternative proceeding exists, the use of which might not be offensive to state sovereignty, is irrelevant to whether the particular proceeding actually used subjects a particular State to the indignities of coercive process. Indeed, the dissent in Federal Maritime Comm'n, much like the Court does today, focused on the fact that the FMC was not required by statute to evaluate complaints through agency adjudication, 535 U. S., at 774-776 (opinion of Breyer, J.,), and could have opted to evaluate complaints in some other manner. But this fact had no bearing on our decision in that case, nor should it control here. I simply cannot ignore the fact that respondent filed a complaint in the Bankruptcy Court "pray[ing] that proper process issue and that upon a hearing upon the merits that [the court] issue a judgment for [respondent] and against [petitioner] allowing [respondent's] debt to be discharged." Complaint for Hardship Discharge, in No. 99-22606-K, Adversary No. 99-0847 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD Tenn.), p. 1.
More importantly, although the adversary proceeding in this case does not require the State to "defend itself" against petitioner in the ordinary sense, the effect is the same, whether done by adversary proceeding or by motion, and whether the proceeding is in personam or in rem. In order to preserve its rights, the State is compelled either to subject itself to the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction or to forfeit its rights. And, whatever the nature of the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction, it maintains at least as much control over nonconsenting States as the FMC, which lacks the power to enforce its own orders. Federal Maritime Comm'n rejected the view that the FMC's lack of enforcement power means that parties are not coerced to participate in its proceedings because the effect is the same--a State must submit to the adjudication or compromise its ability to defend itself in later proceedings. 535 U. S., at 761-764. Here, if the State does not oppose the debtor's claim of undue hardship, the Bankruptcy Court is authorized to enter a default judgment without making an undue hardship determination. See Fed. Rules Bkrtcy. Proc. 7055, 9014 (adopting Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 55 in both adversary proceedings and in contested matters governed by motion). The Court apparently concludes otherwise, but, tellingly, its only support for that questionable proposition is a statement made at oral argument. See ante, at 11.
As I explain in Part I-B, infra, I do not contest the assertion that in bankruptcy, like admiralty, there might be a limited in rem exception to state sovereign immunity from suit. Nor do I necessarily reject the argument that this proceeding could have been resolved by motion without offending the dignity of the State. However, because this case did not proceed by motion, I cannot resolve the merits based solely upon what might have, but did not, occur. I would therefore hold that the adversary proceeding in this case constituted a suit against the State for sovereign immunity purposes.
Relying on this Court's recent recognition of a limited in rem exception to state sovereign immunity in certain admiralty actions, see California v. Deep Sea Research, Inc., 523 U. S. 491 (1998), the Court recognizes that "States ... may still be bound by some judicial actions without their consent," ante, at 4. The Court then acknowledges the undisputed fact that bankruptcy discharge proceedings are in rem proceedings. Ante, at 5. These facts, however, standing alone, do not compel the conclusion that the in rem exception should extend to this case.
Deep Sea Research, supra, does not make clear the extent of the in rem exception in admiralty, much less its potential application in bankruptcy. The Court's recognition of an in rem exception to state sovereign immunity in admiralty actions was informed, in part, by Justice Story's understanding of the difference between admiralty actions and regular civil litigation. Justice Story doubted whether the Eleventh Amendment extended to admiralty and maritime suits at all because, in admiralty, "the jurisdiction of the [federal] court is founded upon the possession of the thing; and if the State should interpose a claim for the property, it does not act merely in the character of a defendant, but as an actor." 2 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1689, p. 491 (5th ed. 1891). Justice Story supported this view by contrasting suits in law or equity with suits in admiralty, which received a separate grant of jurisdiction under Article III. Id., at 491-492. The Court, however, has since adopted a more narrow understanding of the in rem maritime exception. See Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490, 497 (1921) ("Nor is the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction exempt from the operation of the rule [that a State may not be sued without its consent]"). Thus, our holding in Deep Sea Research, was limited to actions where the res is not within the State's possession. 523 U. S., at 507-508.
Whatever the scope of the in rem exception in admiralty, the Court's cases reveal no clear principle to govern which, if any, bankruptcy suits are exempt from the Eleventh Amendment's bar. In Fiske, 290 U. S., at 28, the Court stated in no uncertain terms that "[t]he fact that a suit in a federal court is in rem, or quasi in rem, furnishes no ground for the issue of process against a non-consenting State." The Court contends that Fiske supports its argument because there the Court "noted the State might still be bound by the federal court's adjudication even if an injunction could not issue." Ante, at 7, n. 5. But the Court in Fiske also suggested that the State might not be bound by the federal court's adjudication--a more weighty proposition given the circumstances of the case. Fiske, in part, involved the validity of a federal court decree entered in 1927, which determined that Sophie Franz had only a life interest in certain shares of stock previously held by her deceased husband. When Franz died in 1930, Franz's executor did not inventory the shares because the federal court decree declared Franz to have only a life interest in them. The dispute arose because the State sought to inventory those shares as assets of Franz's estate so that it could collect inheritance taxes on those shares. Although Fiske did not decide whether the 1927 federal decree was binding on the State, 290 U. S., at 29, the mere suggestion that the State might not be bound by the decree because it was not a party to an in rem proceeding in which it had no interest, see ibid., at least leaves in doubt the extent of any in rem exception in bankruptcy.
Our more recent decision in United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30 (1992), casts some doubt upon the Court's characterization of any in rem exception in bankruptcy. Nordic Village explicitly recognized that "we have never applied an in rem exception to the sovereign-immunity bar against monetary recovery, and have suggested that no such exception exists." Id., at 38. Although Nordic Village involved the sovereign immunity of the Federal Government, it also supports the argument that no in rem exception exists for other types of relief against a State. Nordic Village interpreted 11 U. S. C. §106(c) to waive claims for declaratory and injunctive, though not monetary, relief against the Government. 534 U. S. 533, 554, n. 11 (2002).
To be sure, the Court has previously held that a State can be bound by a bankruptcy court adjudication that affects a State's interest. See New York v. Irving Trust Co., 288 U. S. 329 (1933); Van Huffel v. Harkelrode, 284 U. S. 225 (1931). But, in neither of those cases did the Court attempt to undertake a sovereign immunity analysis. Irving Trust, for instance, rested on Congress' "power to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies," 288 U. S., at 331, and the need for "orderly and expeditious proceedings," id., at 333. And in Van Huffel, the Court appeared to rest its decision more on "the requirements of bankruptcy administration," 284 U. S., at 228, than the effect of the in rem nature of the proceedings on state sovereign immunity.** Perhaps recognizing that these precedents cannot support the weight of its reasoning, the Court attempts to limit its holding by explicitly declining to find an in rem exception to every exercise of a bankruptcy court's in rem jurisdiction that might offend state sovereignty, ante, at 9, n. 6. But, I can find no principle in the Court's opinion to distinguish this case from any other. For this reason, I would not undertake this complicated inquiry.
Congress has made its intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity under the Bankruptcy Clause clear. See 11 U. S. C. §106(a). The only question, then, is whether the Bankruptcy Clause grants Congress the power to do so. This Court has repeatedly stated that "Congress may not ... base its abrogation of the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity upon the powers enumerated in Article I." Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U. S. 356, 364 (2001). See also, e.g., Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 80 (2000) ("Congress' powers under Article I of the Constitution do not include the power to subject States to suit at the hands of private individuals"); Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U. S. 627, 636 (1999) ("Seminole Tribe makes clear that Congress may not abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to its Article I powers").
Despite the clarity of these statements, the Court of Appeals held that the Bankruptcy Clause operates differently than Congress' other Article I powers because of its "uniformity requirement", 319 F. 3d 755, 764 (CA6 2003). Our discussions of Congress' inability to abrogate state sovereign immunity through the use of its Article I powers reveal no such limitation. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Sallie Mae was the original holder of Hood's student loan debt. On November 15, 1999, Sallie Mae signed an assignment of proof of claim, transferring the debt to TSAC. The actual proof of claim was filed by Sallie Mae in the Bankruptcy Court on November 29, and one month later, on December 29, the assignment of the proof of claim was filed.
Hood does not dispute that TSAC is considered a "State" for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment.
Hood does not argue in this Court that TSAC waived its sovereign immunity, and we pass no judgment on the question.
Missouri v. Fiske, 290 U. S. 18 (1933), is not to the contrary. In that case, private individuals sought to enjoin the State of Missouri from prosecuting probate proceedings in state court, contending that the Federal District Court had made a final determination of the ownership of the contested stock. We held the Eleventh Amendment prevented federal courts from entertaining such a suit because a "[federal] court has no authority to issue process against the State to compel it to subject itself to the court's judgment." Id., at 28. Although a discharge order under the Bankruptcy Code "operates as an injunction" against creditors who commence or continue an action against a debtor in personam to recover or to collect a discharged debt, 11 U. S. C. §524(a)(2), the enforcement of such an injunction against the State by a federal court is not before us. To the extent that Fiske is relevant in the present context, it supports our conclusion that a discharge order is binding on the State. There, we noted the State might still be bound by the federal court's adjudication even if an injunction could not issue. 290 U. S., at 29. It is unlikely that the Court sub silentio overruled the holdings in Irving Trust and Van Huffel in Fiske as Justice Thomas implies, see post, at 9 (dissenting opinion), as Fiske was decided the same year as Irving Trust.
This is not to say, "a bankruptcy court's in rem jurisdiction overrides sovereign immunity," United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 38 (1992), as Justice Thomas characterizes our opinion, post, at 8, but rather that the court's exercise of its in rem jurisdiction to discharge a student loan debt is not an affront to the sovereignty of the State. Nor do we hold that every exercise of a bankruptcy court's in rem jurisdiction will not offend the sovereignty of the State. No such concerns are present here, and we do not address them.
* Gardner v. New Jersey, 329 U. S. 565 (1947), also does not aid the Court's argument. Although Gardner held that the reorganization court could entertain objections to the State's asserted claim, the Court also held that the State waived its immunity by filing a proof of claim, thus obviating any need to consider the sovereign immunity question in the context of the in rem proceedings. Id., at 573-574.