Whether an order denying a local official's claim of state-law immunity is immediately appealable in federal court under the collateral-order doctrine

This term the Court will decide whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable in federal court under the collateral -order doctrine. The GEO Grp. , Inc. v. Menocal , No. 24758. This petition presents a closely related question: Whether an order denying a local official ’s claim of state law immunity is immediately appealable in federal court under the collateral -order doctrine. In GEO Group , the answer is likely to turn on whether Y earsley immunity is an immunity from suit or a defense to liability . In this case, however, petitioner admit s that state law categorizes the immunity in question as an immunity from suit. But, as Judge Oldham explained in his concurrence below , even if a statelaw immunity is one from suit, it does not “rise to the level of importance needed for recognition under § 1291.” Pet.App. 2 0a. Besides, “the rulemaking process” is now “the way” for identifying immediately appealable orders . Swint v. Chambers Cnty . Comm ’n, 514 U.S. 35, 48 (1995) . The question s presented are: Whether an order denying a local official’s claim of state -law immunity is immediately appealable in federal court under the collateral -order doctrine , and Whether, if this Court in GEO Group holds that the collateral -order doctrine may not extend to orders not involving federal constitutional or statutory concerns absent rulemaking, this Court should grant, vacate, and remand for further consideration in light of that decision .