Discharge Discrimination

Although the Bankruptcy Code is facially neutral, the consumer bankruptcy discharge provisions produce anomalies that run counter to bankruptcy\u27s internal principles of not forgiving debt that is based on misconduct or that implicates a public policy concern. For example, the discharge provisions allow some individuals to discharge debt that stems from civil rights violations or tortious discrimination. In contrast, the Bankruptcy Code precludes some debtors from debt relief based on narrow views of misconduct or misconceptions about moral hazards. These individuals who file for bankruptcy owe debts that generally cannot be forgiven, like civil and criminal fees and fines and student loans. These loans are not always debts that stem from the debtor\u27s misconduct or involve a moral hazard, but they still fit within this punitive classification of nondischargeable debt. This Article adds to existing consumer bankruptcy scholarship by arguing that the anomalies in the bankruptcy nondischargeability provisions create unintended costs that are borne by economically marginalized individuals. The Bankruptcy Code works at cross- purposes with its internal principles of risk spreading and economic rehabilitation by preventing the discharge of penal debt and student loan debt. The inconsistent treatment of debt follows recognizable racial and socioeconomic lines of vulnerability and marginalization. To remedy these inconsistencies, this Article proposes targeted reforms to the bankruptcy discharge system and reintroduces the question of whether there should be nondischargeable debts