Does the lack of statutory and constitutional basis for the equitable mootness doctrine, combined with its demonstrated potential for abuse, require it to be abolished?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The judge-made doctrine of “equitable mootness” allows Article III courts to shirk their bankruptcy oversight duties as mandated by this Court in Northern Pipeline v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982). Under it, a court can decline to exercise its jurisdiction to review the legality of a consummated bankruptcy reorganization plan if the court somehow determines that it would be inequitable to disturb the plan, regardless of whether such plan is unlawful. This doctrine has no common law, statutory, or constitutional basis, contradicts the Bankruptcy Code’s language, overrides this Court’s directive that Article III courts have an unflagging duty to exercise their jurisdiction, undermines fundamental principles of separation of powers, and is prone to abuse. In the absence of any legal justification for the doctrine, the Circuit Courts have crafted several tests to determine when an appeal should be dismissed as equitably moot. The Second Circuit has adopted rules that go further than other Circuits in sheltering bankruptcy court decisions from appeal. The questions presented are: 1. Does the lack of statutory and constitutional basis for the equitable mootness doctrine, combined with its demonstrated potential for abuse, require it to be abolished? 2. Does the Second Circuit’s rule that an appeal from a substantially consummated plan is automatically equitably moot if the appellant did not pursue a stay, regardless of a stay’s availability or any other equitable factors, undermine any prudential purpose for the doctrine? u 3. Does the Second Circuit’s rule that the appellant bears the burden of proof in showing lack of equitable mootness cause reviewing courts to speculate that effective relief is unavailable without any evidence?