Marshall v. Marshall
The Court ruled that federal courts could hear Anna Nicole Smith's lawsuit accusing her stepson of tortiously interfering with a gift she expected from her late husband, rejecting the Ninth Circuit's broad reading of the so-called 'probate exception' to federal jurisdiction.
The decision sharply narrows a judge-made doctrine that lower courts had used to block federal lawsuits touching on estates, clarifying that the exception only stops federal courts from probating wills, administering estates, or taking control of property already in a state probate court's custody.
“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.”
Quoting Chief Justice Marshall to frame the Court's duty to exercise the jurisdiction it has been given.
How it got here: A bankruptcy court and then a federal district court ruled for Vickie; the Ninth Circuit reversed on jurisdictional grounds; the Supreme Court agreed to review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Vickie Lynn Marshall (Anna Nicole Smith) married oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall II, who died without leaving her anything in his will. She claimed he meant to give her a large trust. His son Pierce, the estate's ultimate beneficiary, filed a claim against Vickie in her bankruptcy case; she countersued, alleging Pierce tortiously interfered with her expected gift by isolating and manipulating her husband before his death.
The question before the Court
Could a federal bankruptcy court hear Anna Nicole Smith's claim that her stepson tortiously interfered with a gift she expected, even though a Texas probate court was handling her late husband's estate?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court ruled that federal courts, including bankruptcy courts, could hear Vickie Marshall's claim, because the narrow "probate exception" to federal jurisdiction did not apply. The Court explained the exception only prevents federal courts from probating or voiding a will, administering a decedent's estate, or disturbing property already in a state probate court's physical control.
Since Vickie sought only a personal money judgment against Pierce for tortious interference with an expected gift — not control over any estate property or a ruling on the will itself — her claim fell outside those narrow limits. The Court also rejected the idea that Texas's assignment of exclusive authority to its own probate courts could independently strip federal courts of jurisdiction over an otherwise valid claim.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
People with claims connected to a family member's estate — like tortious interference with an inheritance, breach of fiduciary duty by an executor, or similar disputes — can now more easily bring those claims in federal court instead of being forced into state probate court, so long as the claim doesn't ask a federal court to probate a will or seize estate property already under a state court's control.
What changes now
The case returns to the Ninth Circuit, which must now decide issues it never reached: whether Vickie's claim was a 'core' bankruptcy proceeding allowing the bankruptcy court to enter final judgment, and whether the earlier Texas probate judgment should preclude her claim under ordinary preclusion rules. This is a final merits ruling on the jurisdictional question, not an emergency or temporary order.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether Vickie's claim actually qualified as a 'core' bankruptcy proceeding, nor whether the earlier Texas probate court judgment should legally bar her claim under ordinary preclusion principles — both issues were left open for the Ninth Circuit to resolve on remand.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Stevens
Justice Stevens agreed with the outcome but argued the Court should have gone further and eliminated the probate exception entirely, rather than merely narrowing it. He contended the historical basis for the exception, traced to Markham, was mythical and unsupported, and that existing general jurisdictional rules were already sufficient to keep federal courts out of true probate matters without needing a separate judge-made exception.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court explained that the 'probate exception,' like the related 'domestic relations exception' it had narrowed in Ankenbrandt v. Richards, is a judge-made limit on federal jurisdiction rather than one required by the Constitution or a statute, so its scope should be read narrowly.
- Revisiting Markham v. Allen, the Court found its language about not 'interfering with probate proceedings' confusing, and read it instead to mean only that a federal court cannot disturb property already in the physical custody of a state probate court, applying the general rule that one court won't seize control of a thing already under another court's control.
- Applying that narrower rule, the Court held the probate exception covers only two situations: probating or voiding a will, and administering a decedent's estate, plus disputes over property a state court already physically controls.
- Because Vickie's claim sought a personal money judgment against Pierce for tortious interference, not control of any estate property or a ruling on the will's validity, it fell outside the narrowed exception and belonged in federal court.
- The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's separate theory that Texas's grant of exclusive authority to its probate courts could itself strip federal courts of jurisdiction, holding that a state cannot use its own court structure to cut off a federally created right to sue on a transitory tort claim.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Limits Markham v. Allen (326 U. S. 490)
Reinterprets Markham's confusing language to narrowly bar only disputes over property already in a state probate court's custody.
Reaffirms Ankenbrandt v. Richards (504 U. S. 689)
Relies on Ankenbrandt's approach of narrowly construing the related domestic relations exception as a model for narrowing the probate exception.
Distinguishes Durfee v. Duke (375 U. S. 106)
Says Durfee only concerns full faith and credit for a state court's own jurisdiction ruling, not federal court jurisdiction here.