On May 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Article III of the U.S. Constitution is not violated when bankruptcy courts decide matters with the knowing and voluntary consent of the litigants. Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif,No. 13-935 (U.S. May 26, 2015). The Supreme Court’s ruling in Wellnessis its third decision in four years addressing the powers of bankruptcy court judges. The Seventh Circuit had held in the case that under the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall, the bankruptcy court, as a non-Article III court, lacked the constitutional authority to enter a final order on state law claims, and that the bankruptcy court could not rule, even if the parties consented to proceed in bankruptcy court. A majority of the Court rejected the argument that parties may not consent to bankruptcy court adjudications, holding that “Article III is not violated when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy judge.” Further, the Court went on to hold that litigant consent need not be express but may be implied through a litigant’s conduct; the only test for consent is whether it “knowing and voluntary.” Wellness not only confirms the broad powers of the bankruptcy courts but also confirms the authority of magistrate judges to enter final orders with litigant consent as well, whose power to enter final orders is even more dependent on notions of consent than is the power of bankruptcy courts. Jenner & Block represented the prevailing petitioner Wellness International. Bankruptcy partner Catherine Steege argued the case before the Supreme Court, assisted by partners Barry Levenstam, Matthew Hellman, and Melissa Root and associates Landon Raiford and Ishan Bhabha.