Document Type
Article
Abstract
In Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc., the Supreme Court considered the (decidedly) unglamorous issue of the proper standard for determining when judicial estoppel may be applied. While the case did not attract front page news, those in the bankruptcy law world knew the stakes, as evidenced by the amicus briefs filed by retired bankruptcy judges, bankruptcy scholars, and national bankruptcy organizations. They recognized that, if a merely inadvertent omission by a debtor in required disclosure documents could result in dismissal on judicial estoppel grounds of an otherwise prosecutable claim, there would be profound implications for the estate and its creditors. Ultimately, the Court rejected the Fifth Circuit’s overly rigid standard for judicial estoppel and set forth a totality of the circumstances test. But in doing so, the Court also sent signals—some subtle, others not—suggesting that judicial estoppel nevertheless may not be appropriate in the bankruptcy context at all. This Essay builds on that suggestion and expands the analysis, positing that the application of judicial estoppel in the bankruptcy context is not only incompatible with Supreme Court precedent on judicial estoppel, but more fundamentally, violates well-recognized limitations on the inherent powers of federal courts.
Tracy
Recommended Citation
Abigail Bright Willie, Buddy, Can You Spare a Claim?" Sparing Debtors' Claims From Dismissal Under the Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel, Post-Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. 18 ConLawNOW 170 (2026)