Page:MOAC Mall Holdings v. Transform Holdco.pdf/19

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Cite as: 598 U. S. ____ (2023)

15

Opinion of the Court

*** Nothing in Transform’s creative arguments in this case persuades us that §363(m) is jurisdictional under our clear-statement precedents. Because the Second Circuit’s judgment rested on the mistaken belief that §363(m) is jurisdictional, we vacate that judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.^[1]

It is so ordered.

↑ The parties contest other questions bearing on §363(m)’s meaning and scope. Compare Brief for Respondent 33–37, with Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 28–32, and Reply Brief 21–24. Because we need not answer those questions to resolve the question presented, we do not.

[1] The parties contest other questions bearing on §363(m)’s meaning and scope. Compare Brief for Respondent 33–37, with Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 28–32, and Reply Brief 21–24. Because we need not answer those questions to resolve the question presented, we do not.

[1]