by On June 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Chapter 13 trustee’s petition for certiorari in Bronitsky v. Saldana, leaving intact a significant Ninth Circuit decision that protects the ability of debtors to continue contributing to retirement accounts while repaying unsecured creditors through a Chapter 13 plan.
The Court’s denial is a quiet but consequential win for consumer debtors—and a reaffirmation that long-term financial stability, including retirement savings, has a place within bankruptcy’s rehabilitative structure.
Background: Retirement Contributions and Disposable Income
The case centered on a key question: Can Chapter 13 debtors continue making voluntary retirement contributions during their repayment plan, or must every available dollar go to unsecured creditors?
The Ninth Circuit answered in the debtor’s favor, holding that under 11 U.S.C. § 541(b)(7), such contributions are excluded from “disposable income”—the income debtors are typically required to devote to creditors under a confirmed Chapter 13 plan. The court recognized Congress’s intent to safeguard retirement savings, even for debtors actively contributing post-petition.
The trustee disagreed sharply, warning in the petition that the decision would allow debtors to “shield” income and disrupt uniformity in Chapter 13 administration.
The Arguments: A Disputed Split and Legislative Intent
In opposing certiorari, the debtor emphasized that Saldana created no true circuit split. Every appellate court to address the issue—including the Sixth Circuit—has upheld the right to continue contributions when debtors had done so pre-petition. The Ninth merely affirmed that principle.
Nor did the trustee dispute the debtor’s consistent history of contributions. The case, then, was not about the facts—it was about how to interpret § 541(b)(7) in light of Congress’s policy judgment.
Why the Denial Matters
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case leaves the Ninth Circuit’s debtor-friendly interpretation in place, reinforcing a growing consensus: retirement contributions made in good faith should not be sacrificed in the name of modest creditor recovery.
Had the Court granted review and ruled for the trustee, the result could have reverberated nationwide, effectively banning voluntary retirement savings for more than 180,000 Chapter 13 debtors annually. That burden would have fallen hardest on older workers and financially vulnerable families trying to avoid future poverty.
NCBRC’s Role: A Strategic Advocate
NCBRC played an active role in shaping the outcome. In the Ninth Circuit, NCBRC filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the debtor. At the certiorari stage, NCBRC worked closely with the debtor’s counsel and the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic to help craft the brief opposing the trustee’s petition. That collaboration helped frame the case in a way that underscored its policy and doctrinal coherence, and ultimately contributed to the Court’s decision to deny review.
While we were prepared to engage directly had the Court granted certiorari, the outcome affirms the strong legal footing of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling—and protects Chapter 13 debtors’ ability to prioritize long-term financial dignity alongside their repayment obligations.
The fight over disposable income may not be over, but for now, retirement savings remain secure.