Bakelite argued using a writ of prohibition that the CCPA could not constitutionally hear an appeal from the Tariff Commission's findings about the improper importation methods of Bakelite's competitors. Bakelite asserted that the findings were not a "case or controversy" within the meaning of Article III and that the CCPA, being an Article III court, could not hear it for lack of jurisdiction.[2]
Opinion of the court
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (October 2025)
The Supreme Court issued an opinion on May 20, 1929.[1] By holding that the CCPA was an Article I court, it avoided the question of whether this case was about a "case or controversy" entirely; that part of the Constitution is irrelevant to Article I tribunals. The court could hear this appeal because Congress gave it the authority to do so in its authorizing statute.[2]
Are there any Article III cases that Article I tribunals cannot hear?
An active question is exemplified by the division between Bakelite and Williams: Are there any "inherently judicial" cases within Article III jurisdiction that Article I tribunals cannot consider? This question is of concern to scholars because, if there are not, then it is possible for the legislative branch to place any issue before courts where the judges do not have the protections of Article III. To the extent that these protections "protect" judicial independence, that independence could be obviated away.[2] This question has been addressed in part by the Supreme Court's dichotomy between "public rights" and "private rights." Private rights are inherently judicial, but Article III is satisfied if an Article I tribunal decides the case when there is a right of appeal to an Article III court. This doctrine is famously unclear.[3]
In Stern v. Marshall (2011), the court said that bankruptcy courts (which are Article I tribunals) could not make a final determination on a debtor's claim that was based purely on state law because it affected public rights.[4] However, the court did not strip the authority of the Article I tribunal to hear these sorts of issues, now called Stern claims.[citation needed] The court allowed bankruptcy courts to continue making judgments, created an appeal as of right to an Article III district court,[citation needed] and said that arrangement satisfied Article III.[5][bettersourceneeded] In Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif (2015), the court even confirmed that the tribunals could enter final judgement on these matters with the parties' consent.[6][7]Stern and its significance have been criticized for being extremely opaque and based on a too-formalistic understanding of the issues with this question.[8]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
