Heppner on Categorical Appellate-Jurisdiction Rules
Richard L. Heppner Jr.’s article Conceptualizing Appealability: Resisting The Supreme Court’s Categorical Imperative is now available. Heppner shows that appellate-jurisdiction rules have two components: the category of orders to which the rule applies, and the conditions under which orders in that category can be appealed. Using cognitive psychology, he explores how courts create and apply different kinds of categories. And he argues that courts should have flexibility in creating new categories of appealable orders.
The abstract is below.
In federal court, various appealability doctrines govern whether a decision can be immediately appealed. Some doctrines apply to clearer categories of orders, like injunctions. Others apply to more amorphous categories of orders, like the different “final decisions” appealable under multiple interpretations of the final-judgment rule. The Supreme Court has directed courts to decide appealability based only on whole categories of orders, not on the facts of individual cases. But that categorical imperative has not stopped courts from creating varied new categories of orders to deem final-for-appeal.
This paper draws on insights from cognitive psychology to understand how courts conceive of categories of orders. Cognitive psychologists have shown that people understand the world using not only “classical categories” based on logical definitions, but also “conceptual categories” based on fuzzier, intuitive concepts of similarity and typicality. This paper approaches appealability as a two-step process—first, categorizing the order and, second, applying the appropriate doctrine. Previous interventions have focused on whether different doctrines use rules or standards at the second step. This paper focuses on the initial categorization step.
This paper makes two contributions to the study of federal appealability. First, it maps the appealability doctrines on both a rules-standards continuum and a classical-conceptual categorical continuum. It shows that different applications of the final-judgment rule employ different categorical approaches. Sometimes, when applied to formal final judgments and truly final orders, the final-judgment rule uses classical categories of finality. But in other applications, particularly the finality-for-appeal doctrines, it uses conceptual categories. Second, this paper argues that, despite the Supreme Court’s categorical imperative, courts should employ a flexible conceptual approach to identify new categories of orders that are final-for-appeal. It posits some potential features of those new conceptual categories. Over time, intuitive, conceptual categories could produce more definite classical categories, but only if courts have the opportunity to implement and iterate on them. Shutting down the finality-for-appeal doctrines because of the Court’s categorical imperative would frustrate that development.
I read an earlier draft of this article and very much enjoyed it. Heppner’s insight on the two components of appellate rules—the category of orders, and the conditions for appeal—is especially important. I highly recommend it. The link is below.
Richard L. Heppner Jr., Conceptualizing Appealability: Resisting The Supreme Court’s Categorical Imperative, 55 Tulsa Law Review 395 (2020), available at SSRN.
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
Updated to correct the publication dates in the article cites. The Akron Law Review just published its symposium on federal appeals. The symposium collects contributions from Cassandra Burke Robertson & Gregory Hilbert, Andrew Pollis, Michael Solimine, Adam Steinman, Joan Steinman, and me. The in-person portion of the symposium was unfortunately canceled due to COVID-19. But […]
Continue reading....
In Norton v. High, the Fourth Circuit dismissed a pro se plaintiff’s appeal from a sanction order. The plaintiff had filed his notice of appeal after the district court ordered him sanctioned but before the court determined the amount of sanctions. The notice was thus premature. And under the Fourth Circuit’s approach to cumulative finality […]
Continue reading....
Updated with thoughts on some comments I’ve received. In 2018, I published an article about cumulative finality. The cumulative-finality doctrine allows certain events to save certain premature notices of appeal. The rule can’t be stated much more specifically, however, because the law in this area is all over the map. My study of this area […]
Continue reading....
Last summer, the Rules Committee proposed amending Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c). The rule requires that appellants designate the judgment or order they are appealing in their notice of appeal. Several courts of appeals have read this requirement to mean that appellate jurisdiction exists over only the specified judgment or order. This order-designation rule […]
Continue reading....
In United States v. 60 Automotive Grilles, the Eleventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to immediately review a decision denying intervention as of right. That was because the district court correctly denied intervention. Practically speaking, the court reviewed and affirmed the district court’s decision. But under the “anomalous rule” that the Eleventh Circuit and […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In Diaz v. FCA US LLC, the Third Circuit split over whether a district court had resolved distinct claims for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The majority concluded that the district court had resolved only a distinct theory of recovery, not a distinct claim. Dissenting, Judge Phipps argued that claims are defined […]
Continue reading....
In Grippa v. Rubin, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the immediate appealability of Florida’s absolute and qualified litigation privileges. The court determined that the absolute privilege was immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. But the qualified litigation privilege was not.
Continue reading....
Last month featured a Sixth Circuit debate over jurisdiction to review Brady issues in appeals from the denial of qualified immunity. There was also an especially odd Second Circuit decision in which the court exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction over a normally non-appealable issue even though the court lacked jurisdiction over any other issue. And there […]
Continue reading....
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....