Gosselin v. Commonwealth, 276 F.3d 70, 1st Cir. (2002)
Gosselin v. Commonwealth, 276 F.3d 70, 1st Cir. (2002)
Gosselin v. Commonwealth, 276 F.3d 70, 1st Cir. (2002)
2002)
The bankruptcy court denied the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss, and later
ruled on summary judgment that the state taxes were discharged. The
Commonwealth appealed and the district court reversed the bankruptcy court
and held that Congress, being constrained by the Eleventh Amendment, had
exceeded its power by enacting 106(a). United States Dep't of Treasury v.
Gosselin, 252 B.R. 854, 858-59 (D. Mass. 2000). The district court, therefore,
reversed the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment and reversed the
bankruptcy court's denial of the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss. Id. at 859.
II.
Our review of the district court's order is de novo. Parella v. Retirement Bd. of
the R.I. Employees' Ret. Sys., 173 F.3d 46, 53 (1st Cir. 1999). We affirm, but
without adopting the district court's reasoning or reaching the constitutionality
of 106(a). We do so because, on appeal, Gosselin's brief has presented not a
single colorable argument for why his suit against the Commonwealth should
be allowed to go forward. Other than stating, as the issue presented for review,
the question of whether the Eleventh Amendment prohibits a debtor from
bringing an adversary proceeding against the Commonwealth to have a state tax
debt declared dischargeable, Gosselin's only argument on appeal is that the
state has waived its immunity by statute. The argument is raised for the first
Therefore, we affirm the district court's judgment that Gosselin's claim should
be dismissed. However, we need not, and do not, adopt the district court's
reasoning. We are loathe to address the constitutionality of a statute in the
absence of adequate briefing by the parties, and the United States, by declining
our invitation to file a brief, has chosen to shed no additional light on the
matter.4
Affirmed.
Notes:
*