What is the scope of the probate exception to federal jurisdiction?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 494 (1946), this Court held that Congress did not confer on the federal court’s jurisdiction to “probate a will or administer an estate.” In the intervening sixty years, some federal circuits have hewn closely to Markham, while others have significantly expanded the scope of the so-called “probate . exception,” holding that it ousts otherwise proper federal jurisdiction even over claims between parties that are “ancillary” or “related” to probate. Here, the Court of Appeals aligned itself with circuits that have broadly applied the probate exception, holding that although bankruptcy jurisdiction over petitioner's claim was : . otherwise proper under 28 U.S.C.§ 1334, that jurisdiction could not be exercised because petitioner's claim was “probate related.” These decisions represent an irreconcilable split among the circuits over the scope of the probate exception. Accordingly, the questions presented are: What is the scope of the probate exception to federal jurisdiction? Did Congress intend the probate exception to apply where a federal court is not asked to pro-bate a will, administer an estate, or otherwise assume control of property in the custody of a state probate court? Did Congress intend the probate exception to apply to cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (28 U.S.C. § 1331), or is it limited to cases in which jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship? Did Congress intend the probate exception to apply to cases arising out of trusts, or is it limited to cases involving wills? li PARTIES TO PROCEEDING: Petitioner, who was Respondent and Appellant below, is Hayes Milliman, a citizen of the United States residing in Los Angeles County, Santa Monica Respondents who were Plaintiff and Respondent below, Timothy L. Randall a citizen of the Mexica residing in County Orange.