The Week in Federal Appellate Jurisdiction: February 20–26, 2022


March 2, 2022
By Bryan Lammon

Last week saw a few cases of note. The Seventh Circuit held that an order requiring an insurance company to defend its insured was an appealable injunction. The Sixth Circuit limited a sovereign-immunity appeal to sovereign-immunity issues, refusing to address standing or municipal liability. The Sixth Circuit also split on the extent to which defendants raised arguments within the court’s jurisdiction in a qualified-immunity appeal.

The Seventh Circuit on Duty-to-Defend Orders and Appealable Injunctions

In USA Gymnastics v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., the Seventh Circuit held that an order directing an insurer to defend its insured was an appealable injunction.

USA Gymnastics stemmed from the hundreds of sexual assaults committed by Larry Nassar. Faced with numerous lawsuits and governmental investigations, USA Gymnastics sought financial help from Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., with which USA Gymnastics had a liability-insurance policy. Liberty Insurance denied coverage, and USA Gymnastics sued. After USA Gymnastics entered bankruptcy, a district court (at the recommendation of the bankruptcy court) determined that Liberty Insurance had a duty to defend USA Gymnastics for most of the claims against it. Liberty Insurance appealed.

The Seventh Circuit held that the duty-to-defend order was an appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The order was not a formal injunction. But it had the practical effect of one. For one thing, the primary relief granted in the order was equitable: requiring Liberty Insurance to defend USA Gymnastics. For another, the relief granted was largely what USA Gymnastics sought on the merits when it sued Liberty Insurance. And the duty-to-defend order could cause irreparable harm:

Liberty is obligated to defend USAG going forward, requiring payment of an uncertain amount of defense costs and fees. If the order is incorrect, Liberty’s chance at recovery may be limited because USAG is bankrupt. For USAG, a nonprofit, the direction to Liberty to defend is injunctive because it prevents or remedies irreparable harm to USAG, the policyholder, which has fronted substantial legal fees and costs. A reversal on appeal would reimpose serious financial stress and uncertainty.

Finally, the order substantially altered the status quo, “directing the prospective duty to defend with undetermined fees and costs, and resulting in serious and perhaps irreparable harm warranting immediate review.”

USA Gymnastics v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc., 2022 WL 575720 (7th Cir. Feb. 25, 2022), available at the Seventh Circuit and Westlaw.

The Sixth Circuit on the Scope of Sovereign-Immunity Appeals

In Fox v. Saginaw County, the Sixth Circuit refused to address standing or municipal liability as part of a sovereign-immunity appeal.

Fox was a takings class action against several Michigan counties. The district court denied the counties’ request for sovereign immunity, and the counties appealed. In that appeal, the counties challenged the sovereign-immunity decision as well as the plaintiff’s standing to represent the class and whether the complaint stated a § 1983 municipal-liability claim against the counties.

The Sixth Circuit limited the appeal to the sovereign-immunity issues. Standing was not immediately appealable—despite being a prerequisite to federal jurisdiction—because the court of appeals could review standing in an appeal from a final judgment. And the court refused to extend pendent appellate jurisdiction over the municipal-liability claim. For two issues to be sufficiently intertwined and warrant the exercise of pendent appellate jurisdiction, “the resolution of the appealable issue [must] ‘necessarily and unavoidably’ decide[] the nonappealable issue.” And although the sovereign-immunity and municipal-liability issues were similar, the analyses were sufficiently different.

Fox v. Saginaw County, 2022 WL 523023 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2022), available at the Sixth Circuit and Westlaw.

The Sixth Circuit Split on a “Mixed” Qualified-Immunity Appeal

Finally, in Anderson v. Holmes, the Sixth Circuit split on whether defendants in a qualified-immunity appeal accepted the district court’s reading of the record for purposes of the appeal.

In qualified-immunity appeals from summary-judgment decisions, the court of appeals normally lacks jurisdiction to review the district court’s determination of what facts a reasonable jury could find. So defendants must take that version of events as given and argue that it does not amount to a violation of clearly established law.

In Anderson, the panel could not agree on what the defendants were arguing. The majority read the defendants’ brief to rest entirely on their own version of events, not those that the district court had determined a reasonable jury could find. The majority accordingly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the entirety of the appeal. Concurring, Judge Gilman read the defendants’ brief to alternatively argue that, even under district court’s reading of the record, they did not violate clearly established law. So in this “mixed” qualified-immunity appeal he would have separated the reviewable arguments from those over which the court lacked jurisdiction.

Thanks to Michael Solimine for sending this case to me.

Anderson v. Holmes, 2022 WL 577668 (6th Cir. Feb. 25, 2022), available at the Sixth 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 Contact

Related Posts


It’s the fourth annual winter-break edition of the weekly roundup. As I have in previous years, I took a few weeks off from Final Decisions. But I’m back with a roundup covering the last three weeks of 2022. Those weeks saw a pair of collateral-order decisions, the effect of Nasrallah v. Barr on other kinds […]

Continue reading....

There were three cases of note from last week. The Third Circuit held that notices of appeal do not encompass post-notice decisions. Litigants must file a second notice, or amend the first, to appeal those decisions. The D.C. Circuit held that it could not review a facial challenge to a statute in an injunction appeal […]

Continue reading....

There were a bunch of interesting decisions last week. In the continuing saga of the Rule 3(c) amendments, the Second Circuit acknowledged them and applied them retroactively. In other decisions, the Sixth Circuit explained that it could review class certification in an appeal from a class-wide injunction. The Fourth Circuit clarified the basis for its […]

Continue reading....

I took a break from the roundup last week, but I’m back with a double-sized edition. In the last two weeks, another circuit didn’t recognize that the recent Rule 3(c) amendments abrogated its caselaw. The Eleventh Circuit determined that a stay put an action in “suspended animation,” thereby allowing an appeal from the stay. The […]

Continue reading....

Last week, the Tenth Circuit once again used a pro se plaintiff’s notice of appeal to limit the scope of its review despite recent amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c). The Second Circuit gave a thorough explanation of its jurisdiction over decisions made in post-judgment proceedings. The Fifth Circuit heard an appeal from […]

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....