Opinion ID: 1042863
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: A prior motions panel of this court denied the Lafayette PD Defendants’ motion to dismiss this interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction. Although the Lafayette PD Defendants do not renew their jurisdictional arguments in their merits brief, we may consider whether we have appellate jurisdiction sua sponte at any time. See Save the Bay, Inc. v. U.S. Army, 639 F.2d 1100, 1102 (5th Cir. 1981) (“Because we may not proceed without requisite jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon federal courts trial and appellate to constantly examine the basis of jurisdiction, doing so on our own motion if necessary.” (emphasis added)). We agree with the motions panel, concluding that we have jurisdiction pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, which provides appellate jurisdiction to review “a small set of prejudgment orders . . . [1] that are conclusive, [2] that resolve important questions separate from the merits, and [3] that are effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in the underlying action.” Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 103–06 (2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We have repeatedly found the doctrine applies in cases in which pre-trial orders arguably infringe on First Amendment rights. See In re Hearst Newspapers, L.L.C., 641 F.3d 168, 174 (5th Cir. 2011); Davis v. E. Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 78 F.3d 920, 926 (5th Cir. 1996). In United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 420–21 (5th Cir. 2000), we concluded that we had jurisdiction to consider a criminal defendant’s pre-trial appeal of a gag order imposed by the district court on litigants in the case. We similarly conclude that we have appellate jurisdiction over the Officers’ challenge here. 2 Case: 13-30332 Document: 00512391600 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/30/2013 No. 13-30332