explaining that interlocutory appeal may be appropriate “when novel legal issues are presented, on which fair-minded jurists might reach contradictory conclusions” (quotation marks and citations omitted)
How later courts described this case
- explaining that interlocutory appeal may be appropriate “when novel legal issues are presented, on which fair-minded jurists might reach contradictory conclusions” (quotation marks and citations omitted)
- finding litigation would be advanced when the outcome of the appeal could be dismissal of the case
- ““A substantial ground for difference of opinion exists where reasonable jurists might disagree on an issue's resolution, not merely where they have already disagreed.’”
- "While the district court's certification in certain places purported to certify a 'question,' 'section 1292(b
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRENCE
HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge, concurring.
I agree that the petition for leave to appeal should be granted because Petitioner President Trump has shown that the certified order meets the standards for granting interlocutory appeal.
I write separately to state that we should not use a published order granting leave as a vehicle to clarify or change the law as stated in a published opinion when no such clarification or development is necessary to address the petition for leave.
Further, I do not agree that orders certified for interlocutory appeal are intrinsically “exceptional” because they are rare, or that there is a presumption in favor of granting petitions for leave to appeal when “another Article III judge” certifies an order. The fact that a district judge certified the order for interlocutory appeal is simply a necessary prerequisite present in all cases in which a petition is brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b).