Does the dismissal of an appeal of a bankruptcy court confirmation order based on 'equitable mootness' render an appeal from the same case 'constitutionally moot,' even though a possibility of relief for the appellant still exists?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case involves a Petitioner who timely and expeditiously sought Article III court review of two bankruptcy court decisions, but never received a review on the merits. Instead, the District Court waited until the plan was confirmed, and then dismissed both appeals as moot because the plan had been confirmed. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the dismissals. The case concerns constitutional mootness, and its interaction with “the curious doctrine of ‘equitable mootness,’ which [it has been argued] permit[s] [Article III Courts] to refuse to entertain the merits of live bankruptcy appeals over which they indisputably possess statutory jurisdiction and in which they can plainly provide relief.” In re Cont’ Airlines, 91 F.3d 553, 567 (8d Cir. 1996) (en banc) (Alito, J., dissenting), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1057 (1997). This judge-made doctrine has been criticized by courts and commentators, but this Court has never reviewed its legitimacy. Equitable mootness lacks a statutory basis, lacks any support in Supreme Court jurisprudence, is unconstitutional and allows federal judges to abdicate their responsibilities to adjudicate live controversies on the merits. The questions presented are: 1. Does the dismissal of an appeal of a bankruptcy court confirmation order based on “equitable mootness” render an appeal from the same case “constitutionally moot,” even though a possibility of relief for the appellant still exists? u 2. Should the judge-made doctrine of “equitable mootness” in the context of bankruptcy appeals — which has been used to dismiss appeals despite the presence of federal jurisdiction and the existence of live disputes — be rejected or at least subject to a requirement to conduct a preliminary review of the merits of the appeal?