Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 275.0

114 

MOHAWK  INDUSTRIES,  INC.  v.  CARPENTER 

Opinion of Thomas, J. 

when  a  ruling  of  a  district  court  is  ﬁnal  for  the  purposes  of 
appeal  under  section  1291.”  § 2072(c).  Shortly  thereafter, 
and  along  similar  lines,  Congress  empowered  this  Court  to 
“prescribe  rules,  in  accordance  with  [§ 2072],  to  provide  for 
an appeal of an interlocutory decision to the courts of appeals 
that is not otherwise provided for under [§ 1292].”  § 1292(e). 
These provisions, we have recognized, “warran[t] the Judici­
ary’s  full  respect.”  Swint,  514  U. S.,  at  48;  see  also  Cun­
ningham, 527 U. S., at 210. 

Indeed, the rulemaking process has important virtues.  It 
draws  on  the  collective  experience  of  bench  and  bar,  see  28 
U. S. C.  § 2073,  and  it  facilitates  the  adoption  of  measured, 
practical  solutions.  We  expect  that  the  combination  of 
standard  postjudgment  appeals,  § 1292(b)  appeals,  manda­
mus, and contempt appeals will continue to provide adequate 
protection to litigants ordered to disclose materials purport­
edly  subject  to  the  attorney-client  privilege.  Any  further 
avenue  for  immediate  appeal  of  such  rulings  should  be  fur­
nished,  if  at  all,  through  rulemaking,  with  the  opportunity 
for full airing it provides. 

*

*

* 

In sum, we conclude that the collateral order doctrine does 
not extend to disclosure orders adverse to the attorney-client 
privilege.  Effective  appellate  review  can  be  had  by  other 
means.  Accordingly,  we  afﬁrm  the  judgment  of  the  Court 
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 

It is so ordered. 

Justice  Thomas,  concurring  in  part  and  concurring  in 

the judgment. 

I  concur  in  the  judgment  and  in  Part  II–C  of  the  Court’s 
opinion  because  I  wholeheartedly  agree  that  “Congress’s 
designation  of  the  rulemaking  process  as  the  way  to  deﬁne 
or  reﬁne  when  a  district  court  ruling  is  ‘ﬁnal’  and  when  an 
interlocutory  order  is  appealable  warrants  the  Judiciary’s