Whether the doctrine of equitable mootness is inconsistent with the federal courts' 'virtually unflagging' obligation to hear and decide cases within their jurisdiction

QUESTION PRESENTED Several courts of appeals have adopted a new abstention doctrine—called “equitable mootness”—under which Article III courts decline to exercise jurisdiction to determine the legality of a consummated bankruptcy reorganization plan, on the theory that it would be inequitable to disturb even an unlawful plan. This doctrine has been subject to sharp and sustained criticism from across the federal bench—and for good reason, as it has no support either in the bankruptcy statutes or in this Court’s abstention doctrine, and has distorted the bankruptcy system Congress did ordain, by preventing important questions of bankruptcy law from being decided, causing bankruptcy appeals to be dismissed far more readily than other cases in similar circumstances, and artificially incentivizing arrangements that can be hastily consummated. The question presented is: Whether the doctrine of equitable mootness is inconsistent with the federal courts’ “virtually unflagging” obligation to hear and decide cases within their jurisdiction.