Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court.

I'm John Carlo Canoparo.

I'm Zach Smith.

And welcome to SCOTUS 101, where we break down what's happening at the Supreme Court, what the justices are up to, and other things related to our favorite branch of government.

Welcome back from the holidays to another episode of SCOTUS 101. related to our favorite branch of government.

Welcome back from the holidays to another episode of SCOTUS 101.

Zach, how were your holidays?

They were good. They were a little quieter than normal, but good.

How were yours, G.C.? About the same. You know, as good as can be expected during the pandemic, I think.

Well, excellent. Well, you know, the Supreme Court got be expected during the pandemic, I think. Well, excellent.

Well, you know, the Supreme Court got back to work this week, issuing opinions, orders, and hearing oral arguments.

So I say, let's jump right into it.

In fact, this week, the court released an opinion in one case, City of Chicago v. Illinois.

This case was originally scheduled to be heard last term,

but oral argument was delayed to this term because of the pandemic. This case is a textualist

dream because it focused on how the text of two sections of the bankruptcy code interacted

and what the text of each of those sections actually meant and provided for.

By way of background, whenever someone files for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy code's powerful

automatic stay provision takes effect, which prohibits creditors from taking a variety of actions

against the debtor who filed for bankruptcy or the debtor's property, which becomes part of

the bankruptcy estate. If a creditor willfully violates the stay, that creditor can face harsh

penalties, including paying for the debtor's actual damages, paying for their cost and

...