Whether review of a civil rights discrimination violation holding from an Article I bankruptcy tribunal is precluded by an Article III court based on the 'equitable mootness' doctrine?

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court has made it plain that “the Judiciary has a responsibility to decide cases properly before it, even those it ‘would gladly avoid.” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 194 (2012). The unbridled reliance on the non-statutory doctrine of “equitable mootness” to sustain a challenged but consummated Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan, particularly when civil rights violations (as well as private property rights) are _ implicated, contravenes the responsibility of an Article III court. The first question presented is: whether review of a civil rights discrimination violation holding from an Article I bankruptcy tribunal is precluded by an Article III court based on the “equitable mootness” doctrine? The second question presented is: whether review of a property rights violation holding from an Article I bankruptcy tribunal is precluded by an Article III court based on the “equitable mootness” doctrine? The third question presented is: whether reliance on the doctrine of “equitable mootness” by an Article III Court is proper to avoid review of the non-Article III court in the absence of a motion to stay a bankruptcy reorganization plan six months prior to entry of a final appealable order?