by On July 24, 2025, the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center (NCBRC) and the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA) filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Goldman Sachs Bank USA v. Brown, No. 25-1439. The case concerns whether consumer debtors’ claims under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)—seeking damages for willful violations of the automatic stay—must be resolved through private arbitration, rather than in the bankruptcy courts tasked with enforcing that stay.
The Case Below
The appellees, Rhea Ann Brown and Gregory Kevin Maze, filed Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases, respectively. Both allege that Goldman Sachs, issuer of the Apple Card, engaged in willful violations of the automatic stay by continuing to attempt to collect prepetition debts despite receiving actual notice of the bankruptcy filings and multiple cease-and-desist communications.
The bankruptcy court and the district court both denied Goldman’s motion to compel arbitration. The lower courts held that sending § 362(k) claims to arbitration would be inconsistent with the core functions of the bankruptcy system and would undermine the court’s authority to enforce its own orders. Goldman appealed.
Goldman Sachs’ Argument
In its opening brief, Goldman argues that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires enforcement of the arbitration clauses in the cardholder agreements. Goldman acknowledges that the claims arise under § 362(k) but contends that arbitration of those claims would not create an “inherent conflict” with the Bankruptcy Code. Relying heavily on Moses v. CashCall, Inc., 781 F.3d 63 (4th Cir. 2015), Goldman asserts that because neither debtor’s reorganization efforts are jeopardized by arbitration, the FAA should control.
Appellees’ Response
In their response brief, Appellees Brown and Maze underscore the importance of the automatic stay and § 362(k) as tools for ensuring debtors’ protection and court authority. They detail Goldman’s systemic and repeated stay violations, noting that this is not an isolated incident—similar suits have been filed against Goldman across the country.
Appellees argue that § 362(k) claims are statutorily and constitutionally core to bankruptcy jurisdiction. They emphasize that arbitration of such claims would improperly divest the bankruptcy court of its power to interpret and enforce its own orders, a result contrary to Fourth Circuit precedent and congressional intent.
Appellees are represented by NACBA members Thad Bartholow of Kellett & Bartholow, PLCC in Dallas, Texas and Malissa L. Giles of Giles & Lambert P.C. in Roanoke, Virginia.
NCBRC and NACBA’s Amicus Brief
The joint amicus brief filed by NCBRC and NACBA supports affirmance. The brief frames the automatic stay as a foundational protection in bankruptcy—a safeguard for both debtors and the integrity of the bankruptcy process. It emphasizes that § 362(k) is not simply a private damages remedy but a congressionally crafted enforcement mechanism for a federal injunction.
As the brief explains:
“This case involves the power of a Federal court to enforce its own order, a right—and indeed an obligation—that should not, under the circumstances of this case, be turned over to an arbitrator even in part.”
The amici argue that compelling arbitration would strip bankruptcy courts of their ability to address and sanction violations of their own orders, a result that conflicts with the structure, purpose, and constitutional underpinnings of the Bankruptcy Code. The brief also notes that Congress expanded the automatic stay protections in 1984 by enacting § 362(h) (now § 362(k)) specifically to provide meaningful remedies for individual debtors—remedies that should remain within the purview of the court issuing the stay.
Hon. Allan L. Gropper (ret.) drafted the brief on behalf of NCBRC and NACBA.
Why It Matters
This appeal is part of a broader trend of creditors attempting to use arbitration agreements to avoid judicial oversight in bankruptcy. A ruling in Goldman’s favor would allow large institutional creditors to shift stay enforcement away from Article III courts and into private arbitration forums—potentially undermining the uniformity and authority of the bankruptcy system nationwide.
NCBRC is committed to protecting the statutory and constitutional rights of consumer debtors. We will continue to oppose efforts to erode the authority of bankruptcy courts to enforce their own orders and safeguard the relief Congress intended when it enacted the automatic stay.