Summary
This United States Supreme Court case addresses whether state court defendants sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 have a federal right to an interlocutory appeal when their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is denied. The Court held that no such federal right exists, emphasizing that state courts are not required to adopt federal appellate jurisdiction standards or allow immediate appeals of qualified immunity denials. Relying on principles of federalism and the neutrality of Idaho's appellate rules, the Court affirmed the state supreme court's dismissal of the appeal.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defendants in a §1983 action have a federal right to an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity.
Holdings
- Defendants do not have a federal right to an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity in state court.
Factual background
Petitioners were officials of the Idaho Liquor Dispensary. Respondent, a former liquor store clerk, sued them under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging deprivation of a property interest in her employment. Petitioners moved to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds, and the trial court denied the motion.
Procedural history
The Idaho Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of petitioners after a trial court denied their motion to dismiss. Petitioners sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.