Will v. Hallock
546 U.S. 345 (2006)
Rule of Law:
A district court's order denying a motion to dismiss based on the Federal Tort Claims Act's judgment bar is not an immediately appealable final decision under the collateral order doctrine. Such an order does not implicate a sufficiently important public interest to justify departure from the final judgment rule.
Facts:
- Susan and Richard Hallock operated a computer software business from their home.
- After Richard Hallock's credit card information was stolen and used to subscribe to a child pornography website, U.S. Customs Service agents obtained a warrant to search their residence.
- The agents seized the Hallocks' computer equipment, software, and disk drives as part of their investigation.
- No criminal charges were ever brought against the Hallocks.
- When the computer equipment was returned, several disk drives were damaged and all stored data, including trade secrets and client files, was lost.
- As a result of the data loss, the Hallocks were forced to go out of business.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Hallock and her company first sued the United States in federal district court under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- While the FTCA suit was pending, Hallock filed a separate Bivens action in the same court against the individual customs agents.
- The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss the FTCA action, finding the claim was barred by an exception to the waiver of sovereign immunity.
- Following the dismissal of the FTCA suit, the agents in the Bivens action moved for judgment, arguing the FTCA's judgment bar now precluded the suit against them.
- The district court denied the agents' motion.
- The agents (appellants) immediately appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Second Circuit exercised jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine and affirmed the district court's ruling, holding the judgment bar did not apply.
- The Supreme Court then granted certiorari to review the appellate court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court's order rejecting the judgment bar defense of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2676, qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
No, a district court's order rejecting the FTCA's judgment bar defense does not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine. The collateral order doctrine permits immediate appeal only for orders that would be effectively unreviewable after a final judgment, which requires that the order imperil a substantial public interest, not merely the interest in avoiding litigation itself. Unlike claims of qualified or absolute immunity, which protect core governmental functions and dignitary interests, the judgment bar's purpose is simply to avoid duplicative litigation. This interest is analogous to the defense of claim preclusion (res judicata), which is not considered sufficiently weighty to justify an immediate appeal. To allow an appeal here would expand the narrow collateral order doctrine and undermine the efficiency of the final judgment rule.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the Supreme Court's commitment to a narrow interpretation of the collateral order doctrine, limiting its application to a small class of rulings. It clarifies that a claimed "right not to stand trial" is only sufficient to warrant immediate appeal if it protects a substantial public interest beyond the defendant's desire to avoid the burdens of litigation. By distinguishing the FTCA judgment bar from true immunities and analogizing it to claim preclusion, the Court reinforces the high threshold for interlocutory appeals and prioritizes the principle of judicial efficiency embodied in the final judgment rule.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Will v. Hallock (2006)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"