Shoop v. Twyford

JUSTICE GORSUCH, dissenting.¶verify

The Court granted review to decide whether and under what circumstances a federal district court may order a State to transport a prisoner to a hospital for testing. Later, however, it became clear a potential jurisdictional defect threatened to preclude the Court from reaching that question. The District Court’s transportation ruling was an interlocutory order, not a final judgment. To address its merits, the Court would first have to extend the collateral order doctrine to a new class of cases. See Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. , 337 U. S. 541, 545–547 (1949). In a terse footnote today, the Court does just that. Ante , at 5, n. 1.¶verify

Respectfully, I would have dismissed this case as improvidently granted when the jurisdictional complication became apparent. We did not take this case to extend Cohen . And this Court has repeatedly “admoni[shed]” other courts to keep “the class of collaterally appealable orders . . . ‘narrow and selective.'' Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter , 558 U. S. 100, 113 (2009). If anything, this call for caution “has acquired special force in recent years with the enactment of legislation designating rulemaking . . . as the preferred means for determining whether and when prejudgment orders should be immediately appealable.” Ibid.¶verify