Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Lujan Claimants v. Boy Scouts of America, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 23-1664 · judgment May 13, 2025


Certiorari denied · January 12, 2026
Pre-decision estimate: 3% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 603 U.S. 204, 227 (2024) makes clear that: “the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a [chapter 11] plan … effectively seeks to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants.” In this case, the Third Circuit held the opposite: the bankruptcy code does authorize nonconsensual third-party releases as part of a plan insofar as the plan makes the releases an integral part of a 11 U.S.C. §363(b)-authorized asset sale immunized by 11 U.S.C. §363(m). But §363(m) does not immunize ‘terms of sale’ under ‘a plan’—only “a sale” in fact made “under subsection (b) or (c)” of §363. Other circuits respect these limits. Judge Rendell condemned the Third Circuit’s decision as a “dangerous transactional precedent.” Judge Rendell would have resolved the case through “equitable mootness”: a problematic judge-invented abdication of jurisdiction unanimously embraced by the circuits but never once reviewed by the Supreme Court despite over 40 years of percolation. The questions presented are:

  1. Whether 11 U.S.C. §363(m) applies to asset sales under reorganization plans—and if so, whether §363(m) immunizes Purdue-forbidden releases.

  2. Whether “equitable mootness” exists—and if so, whether it shields unauthorized practices.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Mahesha Padmanabhan Subbaraman
Subbaraman PLLC

For respondent
Philip David Anker
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Amicus briefs
2 cert-stage

Linked docket
25A256

Proceedings

  1. Feb 05 2026
    Letter from counsel for respondent Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice of Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice and Future Claimants' Representative submitted.
  2. Feb 05 2026
    Letter of Boy Scouts of America, et al. submitted.
  3. Jan 12 2026
    Petition DENIED.
  4. Dec 26 2025
    Reply of petitioners filed. (Distributed)
  5. Dec 23 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
  6. Dec 05 2025
    Amended corporate disclosure statement for respondent Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice filed.
  7. Dec 04 2025
    Brief of respondents Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, et al. in opposition filed.
  8. Dec 04 2025
    Brief of respondents Boy Scouts of America, et al. in opposition filed.
  9. Dec 04 2025
    Brief of respondents Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice, et al. in opposition filed.
  10. Nov 20 2025
    Brief amici curiae of Joy Claimants, et al. filed.
  11. Oct 30 2025
    Brief amici curiae of Hon. Eugene Wedoff (Ret.), et al. filed.
  12. Oct 29 2025
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 4, 2025, for all respondents.
  13. Oct 28 2025
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 20, 2025 to December 4, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
  14. Oct 14 2025
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 20, 2025)
  15. Sep 03 2025
    Application (25A256) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until October 13, 2025.
  16. Sep 02 2025
    Response to application from respondent Boy Scouts of America, et al. filed.
  17. Sep 02 2025
    Response to application from respondent The Coalition of Abused Scouts for Justice filed.
  18. Aug 29 2025
    Application (25A256) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 11, 2025 to November 10, 2025, submitted to Justice Alito.