The case of Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank in 2014 revolved around the issue of whether an order denying confirmation of a bankruptcy plan is considered final, and thus appealable. The petitioner, Louis Bullard, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and proposed a repayment plan that was rejected by the Bankruptcy Court due to its noncompliance with legal requirements. He sought to appeal this decision but both the District Court and First Circuit Court denied his request on grounds that it wasn't a final order as per federal law which only allows appeals from 'final decisions'. When taken up by the Supreme Court, they affirmed these rulings in a unanimous decision stating that an order denying confirmation isn’t final because it doesn’t conclusively resolve or seriously affect substantive rights; instead it merely determines one potential step towards achieving reorganization under Chapter 13. Therefore such orders are not immediately appealable.

In the dissenting opinion for Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, Justice Sotomayor argued that a debtor should be able to immediately appeal a bankruptcy court's order denying confirmation of their proposed repayment plan. She contended that such an order is final and thus subject to immediate review because it conclusively resolves one of the discrete disputes within the larger bankruptcy case: whether or not the debtor’s proposed plan complies with all requirements set forth in Chapter 13 of Bankruptcy Code. The denial effectively ends proceedings on this issue and forces debtors into new negotiations or even liquidation - both significant consequences which can't be undone by later appeals. Therefore, she believed these orders have sufficient finality to warrant immediate appellate review under §158(a). By ruling otherwise, she feared majority decision could unnecessarily prolong bankruptcies and increase costs for debtors who are already struggling financially.