Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-511_o75p.pdf
Page Number: 23

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

1 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 21–511 
_________________ 

TIM SHOOP, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. 
RAYMOND A. TWYFORD, III 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

[June 21, 2022] 

JUSTICE GORSUCH, dissenting. 
The Court granted review to decide whether and under
what  circumstances  a  federal  district  court  may  order  a
State to transport a prisoner to a hospital for testing.  Later, 
however,  it  became  clear  a  potential  jurisdictional  defect
threatened to preclude the Court from reaching that ques-
tion.  The District Court’s transportation ruling was an in-
terlocutory order, not a final judgment.  To address its mer-
its, the Court would first have to extend the collateral order 
doctrine  to  a  new  class  of  cases.  See  Cohen  v.  Beneficial 
Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 545–547 (1949).  In a 
terse footnote today, the Court does just that.  Ante, at 5, 
n. 1. 

Respectfully, I would have dismissed this case as improv-
idently  granted  when  the  jurisdictional  complication  be-
came apparent.  We did not take this case to extend Cohen. 
And this Court has repeatedly “admoni[shed]” other courts
to keep “the class of collaterally appealable orders . . . ‘nar-
row and selective.’ ”  Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 
558 U. S. 100, 113 (2009).  If anything, this call for caution
“has acquired special force in recent years with the enact-
ment of legislation designating rulemaking . . . as the pre-
ferred means for determining whether and when prejudg-
ment orders should be immediately appealable.”  Ibid.