...
By Jenna Sundel
News Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling on Wednesday, but some of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices differed on how they reached the decision.
The case centered on whether a private company performing work under a federal contract can immediately appeal a lower court’s rejection of its claim to “derivative sovereign immunity,” which can shield contractors from liability when acting under government authority.
Why It Matters
The court currently has a 6-3 conservative majority, but the conservative justices split on their judgments or reasonings in some cases.
Read More on News
Conservative justices recently split on a major decision on President Donald Trump’s tariff authority.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from Friday’s decision, which held that a 1977 law does not authorize the president to implement sweeping tariffs, while conservatives Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberal justices to form a majority.
...
What To Know
Liberal Justice Elena Kagan filed the opinion of the court in the decision released Wednesday, which was joined in full by several conservative justices, including Justices Gorsuch and Barrett. Justice Thomas joined two parts of the opinion and filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment. Justice Alito also filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment.
Thomas said the court “need not, and in my view should not, further justify our holding by applying” a collateral-order doctrine established in the case Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
The doctrine provides an exception to interlocutory appeals, which is an appeal of a non-final order issued during litigation, according to Cornell Law School.
“I remain of the view that we should not expand the Cohen collateral order doctrine beyond orders that our precedents have already held to be immediately appealable,” Thomas wrote.
The court majority opinion discusses how the Cohen decision applies in this case, writing, “When, as here, an order denies a pretrial request to dismiss, appealability under Cohen will generally turn on whether the defendant has asserted a defense to liability or instead an immunity from suit ... If a defense, Cohen is likely to block an immediate appeal; if an immunity, Cohen will likely allow it.”
Alito said he concurred in judgment because deferring appellate review of certain rulings until final judgment “does not imperil important constitutional or public-policy interests.”
Alito disagreed, however, with the court on the application of a legal precedent set in Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Constr. Co. He said he would not rest the court’s conclusions “solely on the fact that Yearsley’s applicability ‘turn[s] on [the defendant’s] conduct’s legality.’”
“Under the collateral-order doctrine, defendants may sometimes appeal the denial of a defense immediately when doing so is necessary to vindicate important constitutional or public-policy interests. And this rule holds true even if the defense at issue turns on the legality of the defendant’s conduct,” Alito said.
What People Are Saying
Justice Elena Kagan, delivering the Supreme Court majority opinion: “The question here is whether a contractor may take an immediate appeal of a district court’s pretrial order denying Yearsley protection. The answer is no. Because Yearsley provides a defense to liability, not an immunity from suit, an order denying its protection can be effectively reviewed after a final judgment. So appellate review of such an order, as of most pretrial rulings, must await completion of the district court’s proceedings.”
Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurring opinion: “In short, although the majority’s focus—whether a defense turns on the legality of the defendant’s conduct—can be relevant in the collateral-order analysis, it is not dispositive of whether a defense constitutes an immunity.”
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@newsweek.com
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines