Appealing the Disqualification of a U.S. Attorney’s Office
Orders on the disqualification of counsel are not normally appealable. In most cases, an appeal from a final judgment suffices to protect the relevant interests. But what about when a district court disqualifies an entire U.S. Attorney’s Office from participating in a prosecution? Several courts have held that such a disqualification is immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. Last week, in United States v. Williams, the Ninth Circuit agreed.
The Disqualification Order in Williams
Williams stemmed from the prosecution of alleged gang members for a variety of offenses. Simplifying a bit, several of the defendants alleged (in sealed and ex parte motions) misconduct on the part of the Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case. The district court ultimately disqualified in the entire Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office and ordered the government to obtain counsel from another district or Main Justice.
The government then filed an appeal and, alternatively, petitioned for a writ of mandamus.
Appealing Attorney-Disqualification Orders
Attorney-disqualification orders—whether granting or denying disqualification—are obviously not final in the traditional sense. But litigants have tried to appeal these orders via the collateral-order doctrine. That doctrine permits appeals from certain kinds of orders that (1) conclusively resolve an issue, (2) involve an important issue that is separate from the merits, and (3) would be effectively unreviewable in a final-judgment appeal.
The Supreme Court has addressed this issue a few times. Each time, it rejected the appeal. In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, the Court held that litigants cannot take a collateral-order appeal from an order refusing to disqualify counsel in a civil case. In Flanagan v. United States, the Court held that criminal defendants cannot appeal from an order disqualifying defense counsel. And in Richardson-Merrell, Inc. v. Koller, the Court held that civil litigants cannot appeal from orders disqualifying counsel.
The Supreme Court has not addressed the appealability of orders disqualifying an entire U.S. Attorney’s Office. But a few courts of appeals—at least the Third, Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits—have. And they have all held that these orders satisfy the collateral-order doctrine.
Jurisdiction Under the Collateral-Order Doctrine
In Williams, the Ninth Circuit joined those other circuits. The disqualification order was conclusive (as most disqualification orders are). The order was separate from the criminal charges and implicated separation-of-powers interests. And a final-judgment appeal would not suffice:
Whether or not the government ultimately prevails on the misconduct motions here, the harm to the separation of powers cannot be remedied after a ruling on the defendants’ charges. After a final judgment, it will be too late for our court to undo any improper encroachment on the Executive branch’s prosecutorial prerogatives. If a trial results in an acquittal, then double jeopardy bars the government from appealing or re-prosecuting the case. And if the government obtains a guilty plea or verdict, it’s unlikely we can rectify the situation because the government has already prevailed.
(Citations omitted.)
The Ninth Circuit accordingly concluded “that disqualification of an entire U.S. Attorney’s Office warrants immediate appellate review under the collateral order doctrine.”
United States v. Williams, 2023 WL 3516095 (9th Cir. May 18, 2023), available at the Ninth Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In New Albany Main Street Properties v. Watco Companies, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that it could not review a decision granting leave to amend as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. The leave-to-amend decision was not itself immediately appealable. Nor could it tag along with the denial of immunity (which technically involved qualified immunity under […]
Continue reading....
In SEC v. EquityBuild, Inc., the Seventh Circuit heard an appeal from order approving the distribution of some—but not all—of the assets in a receivership proceeding. The order was appealable under the Seventh Circuit’s caselaw, which deemed these orders appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. Judge Easterbrook concurred to express doubt in this caselaw and suggest […]
Continue reading....
In Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic LLC, the Tenth Circuit held that denials of anti-SLAPP motions under Colorado law are not immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. The court drew an interesting line between appeals involving primarily legal issues—which can warrant immediate appeal—and those involving primarily factual issues—which don’t. The court explained that fact-heavy […]
Continue reading....
In Amador v. United States, the First Circuit held that the civil-appeal deadline applied to a criminal defense attorney’s appeal from a disqualification order. The court reasoned that the appeal did not involve the underlying conviction or sentence, nor was the appeal brought on behalf of the defendant. The appeal was thus collateral to the […]
Continue reading....
In Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute, a divided Seventh Circuit held that a defendant cannot immediately appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss on church-autonomy grounds. The Seventh Circuit thereby joined the Second and Tenth Circuits in both its ultimate holding and its having a split court.
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.
Continue reading....
In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]
Continue reading....
I’ve frequently written about the problem of fact-based qualified-immunity appeals both on this website and in my research. I recently decided to collect some new data on how much needless delay these appeals add to civil-rights litigation. I had done something similar a few years ago when writing about the need to sanction defendants for […]
Continue reading....
Yesterday, I filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Parrish v. United States, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court. The case asks if an appellant must file a new notice of appeal after the district court reopens the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Both the […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw another rejection of pure Bivens appeals, an analysis of Perlman appeals in the grand-jury context, and a ruling on mandatory stays during a remand appeal. Plus an odd sovereign-immunity appeal, appeals without the express resolution of all claims, and much more.
Continue reading....