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

Rh 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).

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. 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.

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

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,