In Re the President of the United States

88 B.R. 1, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 6549, 1985 WL 17687
District Court, District of Columbia·Decided March 11, 1985·No. Bankruptcy 84-00631·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

*2 ORDER

GEORGE F. BASON, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge.

The Clerk of this Court has requested guidance as to whether to accept for filing an involuntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code against “the President of the United States of America, in his Official Capacity as Commander-in-Chief, Armed Forces of the United States.” The petitioner claims that he is owed military pay due him since 1943, totaling (with interest) over $39 million. The petition recites that by letter of July 13,1984 the petitioner made demand upon the President for payment of the amount claimed due, which of course greatly exceeds the statutory minimum of “at least $5,000.” 1 A copy of the demand letter is attached to the petition. That letter states that if the demand is not met, the petitioner “will ask the Referee in Bankruptcy [sic[ 2 ]] for proper advice to have an Involuntary Bankruptcy proceeding instituted against the USA.”

Ordinarily, the Clerk of the Court must accept for filing any bankruptcy petition that is submitted, as long as it is signed, complies with other, strictly procedural requirements, and is accompanied by the required filing fee. It is not the function of the Clerk’s Office to pass upon the substantive validity of papers submitted for filing. Nor, ordinarily, would the undersigned Bankruptcy Judge undertake to direct the Clerk not to accept, for substantive reasons, any petition. The appropriate procedure, almost without exception, is for the petition to be accepted for filing; thereafter, if substantively deficient, it can be dismissed either sua sponte or on motion of any party in interest. A judicial direction to the Clerk not to accept a petition for filing should be made only in the rarest of circumstances, where it is absolutely clear beyond any doubt on the face of the petition itself that the petition is fatally and irremediably defective and that under no conceivable circumstances can the relief *3 requested by granted. In such a case it would seem to be more charitable to the petitioner to refuse his petition and refund the $60.00 filing fee, rather than go through the process of accepting the petition (and the fee) and then promptly dismissing the petition (but keeping the fee, as required by statute). 3

This is one of those exceptional, rare cases. Moreover, in this case, the above-quoted text of the petitioner’s demand letter indicates that by submitting the petition for filing the petitioner intends to “ask ... for proper advice” concerning the institution of an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding against the United States. This Bankruptcy Judge’s advice to the petitioner is as follows:

For two closely related reasons it is absolutely clear beyond any doubt on the face of the petition itself that this petition is fatally and irremediably defective and that under no conceivable circumstances can the relief requested be granted.

First, the Bankruptcy Code does not permit the United States Government to be a bankruptcy debtor. Only a “person” (including a natural individual, a partnership and a corporation, 4 but not a governmental unit) or a “municipality” (meaning a political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of one of the fifty states 5 ) may be a bankruptcy debtor. 6 It is true that the petition names as Debtor not “the United States” but “the President of the United States ... in his Official Capacity”; and the President is of course a natural individual. But the petition is against him “in his official capacity,” not in his individual capacity. 7 The claimed debt is, if due, payable out of United States Government funds, not out of the President’s personal assets. 8 Hence, the petition is in essence one against the United States Government, 9 which (as explained above) the Bankruptcy Code does not permit.

Second, and closely related, the doctrine of sovereign immunity stands as *4 an impenetrable barrier to this petition. That doctrine prohibits any lawsuit against the United States Government unless the Government consents to be sued. It is true that § 106 of the Bankruptcy Code “provides for a limited waiver of sovereign immunity in bankruptcy cases.” 10 That limited waiver permits a debtor or trustee to assert certain kinds of counterclaims against the Government, permits mutual claims to be offset, and permits adjudications of bankruptcy-related matters that are binding against the Government. By no stretch of the imagination can that “limited waiver” be construed to encompass a consent to be sued on an involuntary bankruptcy petition.

It is also true that § 1326(c) of the Bankruptcy Code permits a bankruptcy court to “order any entity [including the Government] from whom the [bankruptcy] debtor receives income to pay all or any part of such income to the [Chapter 13] trustee.” This is another limited waiver of sovereign immunity, insofar as it applies to the United States . Government and its officers and agencies, and this too could by no stretch of the imagination be construed to encompass a consent to be sued on an involuntary bankruptcy petition.

Finally, 5 U.S.C. § 702 also contains a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. But it too does not encompass a consent to be sued on an involuntary bankruptcy petition. The second sentence of section 702 provides:

An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United States or that the United States is an indispensable party.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In Re the President of the United States, 88 B.R. 1, 1985 Bankr. LEXIS 6549, 1985 WL 17687 (D.D.C. 1985).

88 B.R. 1 (In Re the President of the United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re: JEROME E. PERRYMAN
Ninth Circuit, 2021
Pelkoffer v. Deer
144 B.R. 282 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1992)
In Re Hill
4 B.R. 694 (D. Kansas, 1980)