In Re Reinhart, 460 B.R. 466

Reinhart filed chapter 7 in the Eastern District of Michigan and elected state exemptions under 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3), claiming exemptions under Michigan’s MCL § 600.5451.
The trustee objected, arguing Michigan’s MCL § 600.5451 is unconstitutional.
Michigan allows two exemptions for debtors in bankruptcy: MCL § 600.6023 (exempt from levy and sale) and MCL § 600.5451 (exempt from property of the estate).
Reinhart elected § 600.5451 exemptions, and the trustee contends the statute is unconstitutional under Schafer (6th Cir. BAP).
The court concludes that § 522(b)(3)(A) was not intended to allow exemptions under state bankruptcy-specific exemption laws like § 600.5451, and thus Reinhart cannot rely on § 600.5451; the trustee’s objection is sustained.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(A) allows exemptions under state bankruptcy-specific exemption laws	Reinhart relies on § 522(b)(3)(A) to use Michigan’s § 600.5451	Lim contends § 600.5451 is unconstitutional under Schafer	No; § 600.5451 cannot be used to claim exemptions under § 522(b)(3)(A)
Whether § 600.5451 is unconstitutional under the uniformity constraint	N/A	Schafer supports unconstitutionality under uniformity	Unconstitutional as applied to bankruptcy exemptions under § 522(b)(3)(A)
Whether Congress intended to constrain § 522(b)(3)(A) to exemptions available to judgments	N/A	N/A	Yes; Congress intended to limit exemptions to those exempt from collection on judgments (state law execution exemptions)

Hanover Nat'l Bank v. Moyses, 186 U.S. 181 (1902) (uniformity constrained by execution-based exemptions in bankruptcy)
Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410 (1992) (statutory change not assumed without history; reluctant to interpret as major change)
Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011) (avoid serious doubt of constitutionality by construing federal statutes)
In re Schafer, 455 B.R. 590 (6th Cir. B.A.P. 2011) (holding § 600.5451 does not meet uniformity under the Bankruptcy Clause)