Whether Article III courts can refuse to exercise appellate jurisdiction assigned to them by Congress over final decisions of non-Article III bankruptcy courts on a determination of equitable mootness

QUESTION PRESENTED ; This case involves a judge made doctrine known as “equitable mootness”. That doctrine allows courts reviewing bankruptcy court orders to refuse to hear appeals from final bankruptcy court orders, even when such appeals are explicitly authorized by the Bankruptcy Code. Both the district court and the court of appeals in ; this case invoked equitable mootness to refuse to review ; several non-Article III bankruptcy judge’s final decisions, : one of which approved a crammed down bankruptcy plan that extinguished dissenting shareholders holder’s equity security claims. . (This Court has never reviewed the legitimacy of the equitable mootness doctrine. In the absence of This Court’s review, not only has the judge made abstention doctrine taken root in the face of clear statutory and constitutional objections, but also the lower courts are in disarray as to how the doctrine if it exists at allshould be applied. The question presented is: Whether Article [II courts can refuse to exercise appellate jurisdiction assigned to them by Congress over , final decisions of non-Article III bankruptcy courts on a determination of “equitable mootness,” and, if that doctrine exists, (a) what is the appropriate standard of review, and (b) whether it can invoked when relief is available that would not scramble a bankruptcy plan or hurt third parties. tl RULE 14.1 (b) STATEMENT All parties appear in caption of the case on the ‘cover page. ;