Page:MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco.pdf/15

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)
11

Opinion of the Court

which directs that certain judicial orders are “not reviewable by appeal or otherwise by the court of appeals” under §158(d) (the Code provision that recognizes the courts of appeals’ jurisdiction in bankruptcy matters).[1]

It also does not suffice that §363(m) issues directions, as Transform occasionally intimates. We routinely hold that congressional commands are nonjurisdictional despite emphatic directives.[2] Transform seems to ignore the possibility that §363(m)’s particular “statutory limitation[s],” Arbaugh, 546 U. S., at 516, could be “important” directives and yet not jurisdictional, Henderson, 562 U. S., at 435. But it is hardly clear to us that §363(m)’s commands do anything more than that.

C

Transform offers two creative retorts, neither of which excavates a clear statement from §363(m)’s unassuming text.

1

Transform insists that §363(b) sales of estate assets must proceed under a court’s in rem jurisdiction, and that courts can only exercise in rem jurisdiction with respect to a res (including interests like the leasehold here) over which they have actual or constructive control. Brief for Respondent 2,


  1. To be clear, we do not hold here that 11 U. S. C. §305(c) is jurisdictional. The point is only that, as jurisdictional cross-references go, §363(m) is not the Code’s clearest case.
  2. See, e.g., Musacchio v. United States, 577 U. S. 237, 246 (2016) (a federal criminal statute commanding that “ ‘no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense’ ” unless the charging document is filed within five years of the offense); United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U. S. 402, 416–417, 420 (2015) (multiple provisions stating that a claim “ ‘shall be forever barred’ ”); Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U. S. 154, 157–158 (2010) (the Copyright Act’s mandate that “ ‘no civil action … shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made’ ”); see also Fort Bend County v. Davis, 587 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2019) (slip op., at 7–8) (collecting further cases).