United States v. Kras

Background

Robert Kras, an indigent man, filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition on May 28, 1971. He lived with his wife, two young children (one with cystic fibrosis), his mother, and her daughter. He had no nonexempt assets, was unemployed since 1969, subsisted on public assistance, and said he could not pay or promise to pay the $50 filing fees. He asked the district court to allow filing without prepaying fees. The district court granted that motion and held the fee requirement unconstitutional as applied to him. The Government intervened and appealed.

Reasoning

The central question was whether Congress may require a $50 filing fee that must be paid before a discharge without violating the Fifth Amendment's due process or equal protection guarantees for a no-asset, indigent debtor. The Supreme Court majority, written by Justice Blackmun, distinguished Boddie v. Connecticut (about divorce) as involving an exclusive state-controlled remedy and a fundamental interest. The Court concluded that bankruptcy discharge is a statutory benefit, not a constitutional right, and applied a rational-basis standard. It stressed Congress' broad power over bankruptcy, the fee's purpose in making the system self-sustaining, and the availability of installment payments under General Order No. 35 (about $1.92 weekly or $1.28 if extended). The Court reversed the district court.

Real world impact

The decision means indigent, no-asset debtors generally cannot claim a constitutional right to avoid the $50 filing fee and must follow statutory payment rules. Courts may allow installment schedules, but broader fee waivers or pauper relief would require congressional action. The ruling resolves conflicting lower-court decisions by restoring the fee requirement while leaving room for legislative reform.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stewart, joined by Justices Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall, dissented, arguing Boddie should apply because indigent debtors have no realistic alternative to bankruptcy and fees deny meaningful access to relief. Chief Justice Burger concurred, agreeing with the majority's distinction and urging Congress to consider reform.