The Administrative-Remand Rule & Cross Appeals
In Kaweah Delta Health Care District v. Becerra, the Ninth Circuit held that a cross-appeal was proper when the government could appeal from an administrative remand. The court explained that when the administrative-remand rule makes a decision final, it is final for everyone.
The Appeal & Cross Appeal in Kaweah Delta
Kaweah Delta Health Care involved a challenge to a Department of Health and Human Services policy concerning medicare reimbursement. The district court held that the policy exceeded the Department’s authority. But the court did not vacate the policy. The district court was concerned that doing so would be too disruptive. The court instead remanded the matter to the agency for further proceedings.
The Department appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The challengers to the policy then filed a cross appeal, challenging the district court’s refusal to vacate the policy.
An Administrative Remand that Was Final for Everyone
The Administrative-Remand Rule
Under the administrative-remand rule, orders remanding a matter to an administrative agency for further proceedings are normally not final. The remand leaves more to be done. And in many cases, immediate review of the remand would both disrupt those proceedings and result in piecemeal review. Delaying review has the benefit of consolidating all issues into a single appeal.
But the administrative-remand rule doesn’t always deem remands non-final. A remand can be final when it might deprive a party (often the government) from any chance at appellate review. This happens primarily when a district court holds that an agency applied the wrong legal standard and remands with instructions for that agency to apply a different legal standard. If, on remand, the agency applies that new legal standard and finds for the party who was challenging the agency’s actions, the government generally will not be able to appeal; agencies normally cannot appeal their own decisions. So the remand risks making the district court’s holding on the proper legal standard unreviewable by a court of appeals. Faced with this sort of situation, the courts of appeals have concluded that the government can immediately appeal the district court’s order.
The Administrative-Remand Rule & Cross Appeals
Under this rationale, the remand in Kaweah Delta was final, and the Department could appeal.
The Ninth Circuit also rejected the Department’s argument that the challengers could not file a cross appeal. The Department argued that there was no final, appealable decision when it came to the cross appeal. But under the administrative-remand rule, the remand in Kaweah Delta was final. And a decision that is final is final for everyone.
Given the pragmatic balancing involved in the administrative-remand rule, I can see the argument for there being no final decision when it comes to cross appeals. But Kaweah Delta seems correct to me on this point. And that’s not just because I’m not a fan of the administrative-remand rule. (So long as a remand marks the end of district court proceedings, it should be a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.) If a decision is final, it should probably be final for everyone, thereby giving appellate courts jurisdiction over appeals from any aggrieved party.
Kaweah Delta Health Care District v. Becerra, 2024 WL 5063933 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2024), 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 Harrow v. Department of Defense, the Supreme Court held that the 60-day deadline for appealing decisions from the Merit System Protection Board is not jurisdictional. It’s a solid decision. It also raises questions about how Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b) applies to the equitable tolling of administrative appeals.
Continue reading....
In In re Clean Water Act Rulemaking, the Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review an order vacating a regulation and remanding the dispute to an agency, as the district court had never deemed the regulation unlawful. This is an interesting twist on the administrative-remand rule. That rule normally bars appeals from orders […]
Continue reading....
In American Great Lakes Ports Association v. Schultz, the D.C. Circuit held that an order remanding a dispute to an agency was final and appealable. Administrative remands are normally not final. But sometimes they are. American Great Lakes illustrates one exception to the general rule that applies when when, despite the remand, the dispute is […]
Continue reading....
In Littlefield v. Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe, the First Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review a district court order reversing a decision of the the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The case presents an interesting variation on the administrative-remand rule. A Massachusetts district court reversed a Bureau decision and remanded for further proceedings. Normally […]
Continue reading....
October Term 2017 could have been a big one for appellate jurisdiction at the Supreme Court. But it was not to be. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District v. Tesla Energy Operations Inc. settled before the Court could decide whether denials of state-action immunity are immediately appealable collateral orders. United States v. Sanchez-Gomez—which […]
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....