Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 315

524us1$86Q 02-17-99 18:23:51 PAGES OPINPGT

270

FORNEY v. APFEL

Opinion of the Court

Finkelstein is not identical to the case before us.

It in-
volved an appeal by the Government; this case involves an
appeal by a disability beneﬁts claimant. Moreover, the need
for immediate appeal in Finkelstein was arguably greater
than that here. The District Court there had invalidated a
set of Health and Human Services regulations, and the Gov-
ernment might have found it difﬁcult to obtain appellate re-
view of this matter of general importance. Further, the
Court, in Finkelstein, said speciﬁcally that it would “express
no opinion about appealability” where a party seeks to “ap-
peal on the ground that” the district court should have
granted broader relief.

496 U. S., at 623, n. 3.

Finkelstein’s logic, however, makes these features of that
case irrelevant here. Finkelstein focused upon a “class of
orders” that Congress had made “appealable under § 1291.”
Id., at 628.
It reasoned, primarily from the language of
§ 405(g), that a district court judgment remanding a Social
Security disability beneﬁt case fell within that class. Noth-
ing in the language, either of the statute or the Court’s opin-
ion, suggests that such an order could be “ﬁnal” for purposes
of appeal only when the Government seeks to appeal but not
when the claimant seeks to do so. Nor does the opinion’s
reasoning permit an inference that “ﬁnality” turns on the
order’s importance or the availability (or lack of availability)
of an avenue for appeal from the different, later, agency de-
termination that might emerge after remand.

The Ninth Circuit itself recognized that the District
Court’s judgment was “ﬁnal” for purposes of appeal, for it
said that any effort “to conclude” that a judgment remanding
the case is “not ﬁnal for the claimant” was “inconsistent”
with Finkelstein.
108 F. 3d, at 232. The court added that
it would be “error for the district court to attempt to retain
jurisdiction” after remanding the case; and it wrote that the
remand judgment, which ended the “civil action,” must be
Ibid.
“ ‘ﬁnal’ in a formalistic sense . . . for all parties to it.”