noting that under the collateral order doctrine the order being reviewed must not involve "considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff's cause of action”
How later courts described this case
- noting that under the collateral order doctrine the order being reviewed must not involve "considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff's cause of action”
- rejecting collateral order appeal of a Parker immunity claim in a suit brought by the federal government; “because such suits do not offend the dignity of a state, sovereign immunity is no defense to such an action”
- “Parker construed a statute. It did not identify or articulate a constitutional or common law ‘right not to be tried.’ ”
- “The Supreme Court did not say in Parker that states and their agencies are immune from federal restrictions placed upon a state’s regulation of commerce within its borders or that Congress could not otherwise make states liable for antitrust violations.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TRAXLER, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
I concur in my colleague’s fine opinion except with respect to the holding in Part III. In my view, the question of whether the actor represents the state is separate and severable from the question of whether the action taken is unlawful. Nevertheless, because the district court order is not “effectively unreviewable” after trial, as pointed out by Judge Motz, I agree the order is not immediately appealable and *448 the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.