Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/14-116_9o6b.pdf
Page Number: 14

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

imperfectly  reparable”  by  the  appellate  process.    Digital 
Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U. S. 863, 872 
(1994).  This  prospect  is  made  tolerable  in  part  by  our 
confidence  that  bankruptcy  courts,  like  trial  courts  in
ordinary  litigation,  rule  correctly  most  of  the  time.    And 
even  when  they  slip,  many  of  their  errors—wrongly  con­
cluding, say, that a debtor should pay unsecured creditors
$400 a month rather than $300—will not be of a sort that 
justifies the costs entailed by a system of universal imme­
diate appeals.

that 

Sometimes,  of  course,  a  question  will  be  important 
enough 
immediately.
it  should  be  addressed 
Bullard’s case could well fit the bill: The confirmability of 
his hybrid plan presented a pure question of law that had 
divided  bankruptcy  courts  in  the  First  Circuit  and  would 
make a substantial financial difference to the parties.  But 
there  are  several  mechanisms  for  interlocutory  review  to
address such cases.  First, a district court or BAP can (as 
the  BAP  did  in  this  case)  grant  leave  to  hear  such  an 
appeal.  28  U. S. C.  §158(a)(3).    A  debtor  who  appeals  to 
the  district  court  and  loses  there  can  seek  certification  to 
the  court  of  appeals  under  the  general  interlocutory  ap­
peals  statute,  §1292(b).    See  Connecticut  Nat.  Bank  v. 
Germain, 503 U. S. 249 (1992).

Another 

is  provided 

interlocutory  mechanism 

in 
§158(d)(2).    That  provision  allows  a  bankruptcy  court,
district court, BAP, or the parties acting jointly to certify a 
bankruptcy  court’s  order  to  the  court  of  appeals,  which 
then  has  discretion  to  hear  the  matter.    Unlike  §1292(b),
which  permits  certification  only  when  three  enumerated 
factors  suggesting  importance  are  all  present,  §158(d)(2)
permits certification when any one of several such factors
exists,  a  distinction  that  allows  a  broader  range  of  inter­
locutory  decisions  to  make  their  way  to  the  courts  of  ap­
peals.  While  discretionary  review  mechanisms  such  as
these  “do  not  provide  relief  in  every  case,  they  serve  as