Will v. Hallock

Supreme Court of the United States · 2006 · Civil Procedure

546 U.S. 345 (2006)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureAppellate JurisdictionCollateral Order DoctrineFederal Tort Claims Act28 U.S.C. § 1291final judgment ruleCohenFTCA

Facts

Susan Hallock and her company first sued the United States under the FTCA, alleging customs agents negligently damaged computer equipment seized during a search; the District Court dismissed that action because the conduct fell within an exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. While that FTCA suit was pending, Hallock also brought a Bivens action against the individual agents, alleging they damaged her computers and deprived her of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. After the FTCA action was dismissed, the agents argued that 28 U.S.C. § 2676 made that judgment a complete bar to the Bivens action. The District Court rejected that argument, and the agents sought immediate appeal.

Issue

Is a district court order refusing to apply the Federal Tort Claims Act judgment bar, 28 U.S.C. § 2676, immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine? More specifically, is such an order effectively unreviewable after final judgment because it protects an interest comparable to immunity from suit?

Rule

An order denying application of the FTCA judgment bar is not a collateral order appealable as a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Although collateral order appeals are allowed for a small class of orders that conclusively determine an issue, resolve an important issue separate from the merits, and are effectively unreviewable after final judgment, effective unreviewability requires more than a claimed right to avoid trial; it requires that postponing review would imperil a substantial public interest of a high order.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Maya Torres sued two federal inspectors in a constitutional tort action, alleging they destroyed her studio equipment during a search. The inspectors moved to dismiss, arguing that an earlier judgment in Maya's separate suit against the United States under a federal tort statute barred the claims against them, but the district court denied the motion.

May the inspectors immediately appeal as of right under the collateral order doctrine?

Explanation. The order is not immediately appealable. The collateral order doctrine is narrow, and a claimed right to avoid trial is not enough by itself. The majority held that denial of the FTCA judgment bar does not threaten the loss of a substantial public interest of a high order; it is closer to claim preclusion, which is ordinarily reviewable after final judgment.