28 U.S.C. 157 permits district courts to refer bankruptcy cases and related proceedings to bankruptcy judges. Whether the bankruptcy judge may enter a final judgment depends on the type of proceeding, constitutional limits, and sometimes valid consent. [1]
Core and non-core proceedings
The statute lists core proceedings and generally authorizes bankruptcy judges to hear and determine them, subject to review. For non-core proceedings that are otherwise related to a bankruptcy case, the judge ordinarily submits proposed findings and conclusions for the district court’s review, unless the statutory consent route applies. [1]
“Core” does not end the constitutional inquiry
Stern v. Marshall held that a claim labeled core by statute could nevertheless fall outside the bankruptcy court’s constitutional final-adjudication authority in the circumstances addressed. Such “Stern claims” require analysis beyond the list in section 157. [2]
For example, a state-law counterclaim’s relationship to a proof of claim can matter to final-adjudication authority. Calling it a bankruptcy dispute does not answer the constitutional question.
Jurisdiction and adjudication differ
Section 1334 supplies district-court bankruptcy jurisdiction. A court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, referral, power to enter judgment, and appellate route are different questions. [3]
Raise the issue precisely
Identify the claim, relief, statutory core category, consent record, jury demand, and relationship to claims allowance. Review the referral and any withdrawal request. Procedural objections should be preserved at the appropriate time.
Consent and a jury demand require procedural review
Section 157 contains a consent route for final adjudication of specified non-core related proceedings. It also addresses bankruptcy-judge jury trials when the statutory conditions, including appropriate designation and express consent, are met. A jury demand therefore should not be treated as automatically resolving referral, final-judgment authority, or the identity of the trial judge. [1]
Withdrawal of the reference has its own procedure and standards. Identify what issue requires district-court action, when the request is made, and what work can remain with the bankruptcy court. Parties cannot create subject-matter jurisdiction simply by agreeing, even though legally sufficient consent can affect adjudicative authority in an appropriate case. Likewise, calling a claim “Stern” does not mean it must disappear; the question concerns the constitutionally proper method for deciding it. [1] [2] [3]
See criminal bankruptcy fraud and interlocutory appeals. A criminal allegation or appeal request does not itself determine which court can finally adjudicate a civil bankruptcy claim.
Primary sources
Sources checked: October 31, 2026.