Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-601_bq7c.pdf
Page Number: 20

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

lawsuit,”  United  States  ex rel.  Eisenstein  v.  City  of  New 
York, 556 U. S. 928, 933 (2009), dismissal is the quintessen-
tial (if not only) method for a party to become a nonparty, 
see, e.g., 67A C. J. S., Parties §86 (2013) (“Once a person is 
dismissed from a lawsuit, he or she is generally no longer a 
party to it”). 
  One need hardly look beyond the case caption to see how 
dismissal ended the attorney general’s status as a “party” 
to the litigation.  To be sure, case captions are “ ‘not deter-
minative as to the identity of the parties to the action.’ ”  Ei-
senstein, 556 U. S., at 935 (quoting 5A C. Wright & A. Mil-
ler,  Federal  Practice  and  Procedure  §1321,  p. 388  (3d  ed. 
2004)).  But they can be instructive, given that “ ‘[t]he des-
ignation of persons as parties is usually made in the caption 
of the summons or complaint.’ ”  Devlin v. Scardelletti, 536 
U. S. 1, 15 (2002) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (quoting Restate-
ment  (Second)  of  Judgments  §34,  Comment  a,  Reporter’s 
Note,  p.  347  (1980)).    Here,  because  respondents  initially 
named then-Attorney General Beshear as the lead defend-
ant in their complaint, the District Court’s orders originally 
captioned  the  defendants  as  “ANDREW  G.  BESHEAR, 
et al.”  E.g., App. 28.  After the District Court dismissed the 
attorney  general  on  May  21,  2018,  the  court  ordered  the 
clerk  to  modify  the  case  caption  to  “reflect  the  remaining 
properly named Defendants”: “Meier, et al.” Id., at 5, 7; see 
also App. to Pet. for Cert. 104a (District Court final judg-
ment listing the defendants as “ADAM W. MEIER et al.”).  
The  District  Court’s  modification  of  the  caption  confirms 
that when the court issued its judgment, the attorney gen-
eral was no longer a “party.” 
  Because the attorney general was not a “party” to the Dis-
trict Court’s final judgment, respondents’ jurisdictional ar-
gument necessarily fails.  As a nonparty, the attorney gen-
eral could not notice an appeal under Rules 3 and 4.  And 
because he could not notice an appeal, he could not possibly