Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 292

524US1

Unit: $U85

[09-14-00 16:49:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 236 (1998)

247

Opinion of the Court

satisfy this threshold jurisdictional requirement, respondent
Fitzgerald argued, “the District Court’s order was not an
appealable ‘case’ properly ‘in’ the Court of Appeals within
the meaning of § 1254.”
457 U. S., at 742. Turning aside
this argument, we ruled “petitioner did present a ‘serious
and unsettled’ and therefore appealable question to the
Court of Appeals.
It follow[ed] that the case was ‘in’ the
Court of Appeals under § 1254 and properly within our
Id., at 743. We elaborated: “There
certiorari jurisdiction.”
can be no serious doubt concerning our power to review a
court of appeals’ decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
. . . .
If we lacked authority to do so, decisions to dismiss
for want of jurisdiction would be insulated entirely from
review by this Court.”
Id., at 743, n. 23; see also United
States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683, 692 (1974) (holding appeal of
District Court’s denial of motion to quash subpoena duces
tecum was in the Court of Appeals for purposes of § 1254(1)).
We have shown no doubts about our jurisdiction to review
dismissals by the Courts of Appeals for failure to ﬁle a timely
notice of appeal under § 1254(1). The ﬁling of a proper
notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Torres v.
Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U. S. 312, 315 (1988); United
States v. Robinson, 361 U. S. 220, 224 (1960); Advisory Com-
mittee’s Notes on Fed. Rule App. Proc. 3, 28 U. S. C. App.,
p. 589. The failure to satisfy this jurisdictional prerequisite
has not kept the case from entering the Court of Appeals,
however. We have reviewed these dismissals often and
without insisting the petitioner satisfy the requirements for
an extraordinary writ and without suggesting our lack of
jurisdiction to do so. E. g., Houston v. Lack, 487 U. S. 266
(1988); Torres, supra; Fallen v. United States, 378 U. S. 139
(1964); United States v. Robinson, supra; Leishman v. Asso-
ciated Wholesale Elec. Co., 318 U. S. 203 (1943).

We have also held that § 1254(1) permits us to review deni-
als of motions for leave to intervene in the Court of Appeals
in proceedings to review the decision of an administra-