Whether the 'willful and malicious injury' exception applies only where a debtor has a subjective intent to injure or may also be satisfied by conduct that objectively has a substantial certainty of causing injury

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge “any debts *** for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity.” 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6). In Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (1998), the Court held that this provision—commonly known as the “willful and malicious injury” exception—applies “only” to “acts done with the actual intent to cause injury.” Id. at 61. A “deep circuit split” has since emerged concerning the requirements necessary to fall within the statutory text. Pet. App. 10a. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the “willful and malicious injury” exception applies only where a debtor has a subjective intent to injure (as five circuits hold), or whether it may also be satisfied by conduct that objectively has a substantial certainty of causing injury (as three circuits hold)? 2. Whether the “willful and malicious injury” exception establishes a unitary standard requiring only “actual intent to cause injury” (as five circuits hold), or whether it establishes a two-pronged test requiring both “actual intent to cause injury” and conduct “in conscious disregard of one’s duties or without just cause or excuse” (as six circuits hold)? (i)