Detroit vs. Everybody: Governance Reform and the Limits of Chapter 9.

The article examines the limitations of chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy through the case study of Detroit's 2013 bankruptcy, the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history. While chapter 9 allows financially distressed municipalities to propose feasible debt adjustment plans aimed at restoring fiscal viability without liquidation, it lacks provisions for judicially mandated governance reform, even when mismanagement contributes to insolvency. Detroit's bankruptcy plan, including the "Grand Bargain" that preserved the Detroit Institute of Art's collection and mitigated pension cuts, demonstrated chapter 9's strength in pragmatic financial restructuring but left underlying governance issues unaddressed. The article argues that Congress should amend chapter 9 to empower bankruptcy courts to require narrowly tailored governance reforms when structural dysfunction substantially causes insolvency, balancing federalism concerns by preserving state consent and municipal choice. Such reform would enable municipalities to achieve both immediate financial relief and sustainable institutional recovery.