Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-511_o75p.pdf
Page Number: 18

4 

SHOOP v. TWYFORD 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

after final judgment, we have said that “the mere identifi-
cation of some interest that would be ‘irretrievably lost’ has 
never sufficed,” on its own, to justify interlocutory appeal. 
Digital Equipment Corp., 511 U. S., at 872.  Rather, the or-
der must implicate “ ‘a substantial public interest’ or ‘some 
particular value of a high order.’ ”  Mohawk Industries, Inc., 
558 U. S., at 107.  It is difficult to see how transportation
orders of the kind at issue here meet that requirement.  The 
order is analogous to a discovery order because it requires 
the State to transport a prisoner for medical testing in order
to develop evidence relating to the prisoner’s habeas claims.
See ante, at 1, 7–8 (comparing requirements for a transpor-
tation  order  to  requirements  for  discovery  and  for  an  evi-
dentiary hearing).  I see no reason why such an order ordi-
narily  should  be  of  greater  importance  than  a  discovery 
order of some other kind. 

We have held that discovery orders are not immediately 
appealable, even where discovery would require revealing 
privileged information that, once shared, could not be un-
shared if the disclosing party prevailed on appeal after final
judgment.  Mohawk Industries, Inc., 558 U. S., at 108–109. 
Why should discovery-like transportation orders be imme-
diately appealable when ordinary discovery orders are not? 
Neither touches upon substantial public interests.  And, in 
both instances, the harms of interlocutory appeal are sig-
nificant while the countervailing benefits are minimal.

Take first the harms.  As I said above, interlocutory ap-
peals “unduly delay the resolution of district court litigation
and  needlessly  burden  the  courts  of  appeals.”    See  id.,  at 
112.  In  this  case,  for  example,  the  appeal  of  the  District 
Court’s transportation order has lasted over two years.  See 
App. to Pet. for Cert. 33a (order entered March 19, 2020). 
If  interlocutory  appeals  were  permitted  as  of  right  in  all 
similar cases requiring transportation of a prisoner, the re-
sulting delays would impair the ability of district courts to 
manage their own dockets and supervise trial proceedings.