Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 279.0

118 

MOHAWK  INDUSTRIES,  INC.  v.  CARPENTER 

Opinion of Thomas, J. 

ruling  at  issue  is  “particularly  injurious  or  novel.”  Ante, 
at  110.  If  that  is  right,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is,  then 
the  opinion  raises  the  question  why  such  avenues  were  not 
also  adequate  to  address  the  orders  whose  unusual  impor­
tance or particularly injurious nature we have held justiﬁed 
immediate appeal under Cohen.  See, e. g., Sell, 539 U. S., at 
177.  Second, the facts of this particular case seem in several 
respects to undercut the Court’s conclusion that the beneﬁts 
of  collateral  order  review  “cannot  justify  the  likely  institu­
tional  costs.”  Ante,  at  112.*  The  Court  responds  that 
these  case-speciﬁc  arguments  miss  the  point  because  the 
focus of the Cohen analysis is whether the “entire category” 
or  “class  of  claims”  at  issue  merits  appellate  review  under 
the  collateral  order  doctrine.  Ante,  at  107  (internal  quota­
tion  marks  omitted).  That  is  exactly  right,  and  illustrates 
what  increasingly  has  bothered  me  about  making  this  kind 
of appealability determination via case-by-case adjudication. 
The  exercise  forces  the  reviewing  court  to  subordinate  the 
realities  of  each  case  before  it  to  generalized  conclusions 
about the “likely” costs and beneﬁts of allowing an exception 
to the ﬁnal judgment rule in an entire “class of cases.”  The 
Court concedes that Congress, which holds the constitutional 
reins in this area, has determined that such value judgments 

*The  Court  concludes,  for  example,  that  in  most  cases  ﬁnal  judgment 
review of an erroneous privilege ruling will sufﬁce to vindicate the injured 
party’s  rights  because  the  appellate  court  can  vacate  the  adverse  judg­
ment  and  remand  for  a  new  trial  in  which  the  protected  material  is  ex­
cluded.  Ante,  at  109.  But  this  case  appears  to  involve  one  of  the  (per­
haps  rare)  situations  in  which  ﬁnal  judgment  review  might  not  be 
sufﬁcient  because  it  is  a  case  in  which  the  challenged  order  already  has 
had  “implications beyond  the  case at  hand,” namely,  in  the separate  class 
action in Williams v.  Mohawk Indus., Inc., No. 4:04–CV–00003–HLM (ND 
Ga.).  Ante,  at  112.  The  Court  also  concludes  that  the  “likely  institu­
tional costs” of  allowing collateral order review would  outweigh its bene­
ﬁts  because,  inter  alia,  such  review  would  “needlessly  burden  the  courts 
of  appeals.”  Ibid.  But  as the  Court  concedes,  it  must speculate  on  this 
point  because  the  three  Circuits  that  allow  Cohen  appeals  of  privilege 
rulings have not been overwhelmed.  See ante, at 113.