Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-511_o75p.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

5 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

By comparison, the benefits of interlocutory appeal here 
are small.  District courts, not appellate courts, have “com-
parative  expertise”  in  deciding  when  evidentiary  develop-
ment  is  appropriate  and  when  transportation  orders  are 
necessary to facilitate that development.  See Johnson, 515 
U. S., at 317.  As a result, interlocutory appeal is unlikely 
“to bring important error-correcting benefits” in most cases. 
Id., at 316.  In the rare case where an erroneous transpor-
tation order happens to implicate unusually important in-
terests, a State has other avenues for addressing that error.
It can ask district courts to certify a discretionary interloc-
utory appeal under §1292(b); seek a writ of mandamus; or 
defy  the  order  and  incur  a  court-imposed  sanction,  which
may then itself be appealed immediately in some cases.  See 
Mohawk Industries Inc., 558 U. S., at 110–112.  Those ave-
nues—sufficient to protect against errors in discovery, see 
ibid.—should generally be sufficient for transportation-re-
lated errors as well. 

Second,  the  Court  overstates  transportation  orders’  im-
pact on “state sovereignty.”  See ante, at 5, n. 1.  The Court 
of Appeals noted respondent’s argument that “discovery or-
ders generally are not appealable under the collateral-order
doctrine,” but it distinguished the transportation order at
issue  here  on  the  ground  that  it  “implicates  . . .  a  federal 
court’s authority to compel state action.”  11 F. 4th 518, 523 
(CA6 2021).  But the mere fact that the appealing party is 
a  State  is  not,  on  its  own,  enough  to  justify  interlocutory
appeal.  We have never suggested, for example, that a dis-
covery  order  against  a  State  is  immediately  appealable
simply  because  it  imposes  costs  on  a  sovereign  State.    To 
allow interlocutory appeal on such grounds would create an
anomaly: The State would be able to immediately appeal a 
discovery  order  entered  against  it,  but  an  opposing  party
would not. 

The Court suggests that the transportation order here is 
not a mere discovery order because it “requir[es] a State to