source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice O’Connor

license: Public Domain

text:
    WILTON et al. v. SEVEN FALLS CO. et al.
    No. 94-562.
    Argued March 27,1995 —
    Decided June 12, 1995

      O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except Breyer, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

      Michael A. Orlando argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Patrick C. Appel and Paul LeRoy Crist.

      Werner A. Powers argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Charles C. Keeble, Jr.

        Laura A Foggan, Daniel E. Troy, and Thomas W. Brunner filed a brief for the Insurance Environmental Litigation Association as amicus curiae urging reversal.

        Edward F. LeBreton III filed a brief for the Maritime Law Association as amicus curiae.

   Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case asks whether the discretionary standard set forth in Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of America, 316 U. S. 491 (1942), or the “exceptional circumstances” test developed in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800 (1976), and Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1 (1983), governs a district court’s decision to stay a declaratory judgment action during the pendency of parallel state court proceedings, and under what standard of review a court of appeals should evaluate the district court’s decision to do so.

I

In early 1992, a dispute between respondents (the Hill Group) and other parties over the ownership and operation of oil and gas properties in Winkler County, Texas, appeared likely to culminate in litigation. The Hill Group asked petitioners (London Underwriters) to provide them with coverage under several commercial liability insurance policies. London Underwriters refused to defend or indemnify the Hill Group in a letter dated July 31, 1992. In September 1992, after a 3-week trial, a Winkler County jury entered a verdict in excess of $100 million against the Hill Group on various state law claims.

The Hill Group gave London Underwriters notice of the verdict in late November 1992. On December 9,1992, London Underwriters filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, basing jurisdiction upon diversity of citizenship under 28 U. S. C. § 1332. London Underwriters sought a declaration under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201(a) (1988 ed., Supp. V), that their policies did not cover the Hill Group’s liability for the Winkler County judgment. After negotiations with the Hill Group’s counsel, London Underwriters voluntarily dismissed the action on January 22, 1993. London Underwriters did so, however, upon the express condition that the Hill Group give London Underwriters two weeks’ notice if they decided to bring suit on the policy.

On February 23,1993, the Hill Group notified London Underwriters of their intention to file such a suit in Travis County, Texas. London Underwriters refiled their declaratory judgment action in the Southern District of Texas on February 24,1993. As promised, the Hill Group initiated an action against London Underwriters on March 26, 1993, in state court in Travis County. The Hill Group’s codefendants in the Winkler County litigation joined in this suit and asserted claims against certain Texas insurers, thus rendering the parties nondiverse and the suit nonremovable.

On the same day that the Hill Group filed their Travis County action, they moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay London Underwriters’ federal declaratory judgment action. After receiving submissions from the parties on the issue, the District Court entered a stay on June 30, 1993. The District Court observed that the state lawsuit pending in Travis County encompassed the same coverage issues raised in the declaratory judgment action and determined that a stay was warranted in order to avoid piecemeal litigation and to bar London Underwriters’ attempts at forum shopping. London Underwriters filed a timely appeal. See Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, supra, at 10 (a district court’s order staying federal proceedings in favor of pending state litigation is a “final decisio[n]” appealable under 28 U.S.C. §1291).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 41 F. 3d 934 (1994). Noting that under Circuit precedent, “[a] district court has broad discretion to grant (or decline to grant) declaratory judgment,” id., at 935, citing Torch, Inc. v. LeBlanc, 947 F. 2d 193, 194 (CA5 1991), the Court of Appeals did not require application of the test articulated in Colorado River, supra, and Moses H. Cone, supra, under which district courts must point to “exceptional circumstances” to justify staying or dismissing federal proceedings. Citing the interests in avoiding duplicative proceedings and forum shopping, the Court of Appeals reviewed the District Court’s decision for abuse of discretion, and found none. 41 F. 3d, at 935.

We granted certiorari, 513 U. S. 1013 (1994), to resolve Circuit conflicts concerning the standard governing a district court’s decision to stay a declaratory judgment action in favor of parallel state litigation, compare, e. g., Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Missouri Elec. Works, 23 F. 3d 1372, 1374, n. 3 (CA8 1994) (pursuant to Colorado River and Moses H. Cone, a district court may not stay or dismiss a declaratory judgment action absent “exceptional circumstances”); Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co. v. Connecticut Bank & Trust, 806 F. 2d 411, 413 (CA2 1986) (same), with Travelers Ins. Co. v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation, Inc., 996 F. 2d 774, 778, n. 12 (CA5 1993) (the “exceptional circumstances” test of Colorado River and Moses H. Cone is inapplicable in declaratory judgment actions); Mitcheson v. Harris, 955 F. 2d 235, 237-238 (CA4 1992) (same), and the applicable standard for an appellate court’s review of a district court’s decision to stay a declaratory judgment action, compare, e. g., United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 21 F. 3d 259, 263, n. 5 (CA8 1994) (reviewing for abuse of discretion); Christopher P. v. Marcus, 915 F. 2d 794, 802 (CA2 1990) (same), with Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F. 2d 931, 936 (CA Fed. 1993) (reviewing de novo); Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Holbrook, 867 F. 2d 1330, 1333 (CA11 1989) (same). We now affirm.

II

Over 50 years ago, in Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of America, 316 U. S. 491 (1942), this Court addressed circumstances virtually identical to those present in the case before us today. An insurer, anticipating a coercive suit, sought a declaration in federal court of nonliability on an insurance policy. The District Court dismissed the action in favor of pending state garnishment proceedings, to which the insurer had been added as a defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding an abuse of discretion, and ordered the District Court to proceed to the merits. Reversing the Court of Appeals and remanding to the District Court, this Court held that, “[although the District Court had jurisdiction of the suit under the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act, it was under no compulsion to exercise that jurisdiction.” Id., at 494. The Court explained that “[ojrdinarily it would be uneconomical as well as vexatious for a federal court to proceed in a declaratory judgment suit where another suit is pending in a state court presenting the same issues, not governed by federal law, between the same parties.” Id., at 495. The question for a district court presented with a suit under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the Court found, is “whether the questions in controversy between the parties to the federal suit, and which are not foreclosed under the applicable substantive law, can better be settled in the proceeding pending in the state court.” Ibid.

Brillhart makes clear that district courts possess discretion in determining whether and when to entertain an action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, even when the suit otherwise satisfies subject matter jurisdictional prerequisites. Although Brillhart did not set out an exclusive list of factors governing the district court’s exercise of this discretion, it did provide some useful guidance in that regard. The Court indicated, for example, that in deciding whether to enter a stay, a district court should examine “the scope of the pending state court proceeding and the nature of defenses open there.” Ibid. This inquiry, in turn, entails consideration of “whether the claims of all parties in interest can satisfactorily be adjudicated in that proceeding, whether necessary parties have been joined, whether such parties are amenable to process in that proceeding, etc.” Ibid. Other cases, the Court noted, might shed light on additional factors governing a district court’s decision to stay or to dismiss a declaratory judgment action at the outset. See ibid. But Brillhart indicated that, at least where another suit involving the same parties and presenting opportunity for ventilation of the same state law issues is pending in state court, a district court might be indulging in “[gratuitous interference,” ibid., if it permitted the federal declaratory action to proceed.

Brillhart, without more, clearly supports the District Court’s decision in this case. (That the court here stayed, rather than dismissed, the action is of little moment in this regard, because the state court’s decision will bind the parties under principles of res judicata.) Nonetheless, London Underwriters, argue, and several Courts of Appeals have agreed, that intervening case law has supplanted Brillhart’s notions of broad discretion with a test under which district courts may stay or dismiss actions properly within their jurisdiction only in “exceptional circumstances.” In London Underwriters’ view, recent cases have established that a district court must point to a compelling reason — which, they say, is lacking here — in order to stay a declaratory judgment action in favor of pending state proceedings. To evaluate this argument, it is necessary to examine three cases handed down several decades after Brillhart.

In Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800 (1976), the Government brought an action in Federal District Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1345 seeking a declaration of its water rights, the appointment of a water master, and an order enjoining all uses and diversions of water by other parties. See Pet. for Cert. in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, O. T. 1974, No. 74-940, pp. 39a-40a. The District Court dismissed the action in deference to ongoing state proceedings. The Court of Appeals reversed, 504 F. 2d 115 (CA10 1974), on the ground that the District Court had jurisdiction over the Government’s suit and that abstention was inappropriate. This Court reversed again. Without discussing Brillhart, the Court began with the premise that federal courts have a “virtually unflagging obligation” to exercise the jurisdiction conferred on them by Congress. Colorado River, supra, at 813, 817-818, citing Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821). The Court determined, however, that a district court could nonetheless abstain from the assumption of jurisdiction over a suit in “exceptional” circumstances, and it found such exceptional circumstances on the facts of the case. 424 U. S., at 818-820. Specifically, the Court deemed dispos-itive a clear federal policy against piecemeal adjudication of water rights; the existence of an elaborate state scheme for resolution of such claims; the absence of any proceedings in the District Court, other than the filing of the complaint, prior to the motion to dismiss; the extensive nature of the suit; the 300-mile distance between the District Court and the situs of the water district at issue; and the prior participation of the Federal Government in related state proceedings.

Two years after Colorado River we decided Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 437 U. S. 655 (1978), in which a plurality of the Court stated that, while “ ‘the pendency of an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal court having jurisdiction,’” id., at 662, quoting McClellan v. Carland, 217 U. S. 268, 282 (1910), a district court is “ ‘under no compulsion to exercise that jurisdiction,’ ” 437 U. S., at 662, quoting Brillhart, 316 U. S., at 494. Will concerned an action seeking damages for an alleged violation of federal securities laws brought in federal court during the pendency of related state proceedings. Although the case arose outside the declaratory judgment context, the plurality invoked Brillhart as the appropriate authority. Colorado River, according to the plurality, “in no way undermine[d] the conclusion of Brillhart that the decision whether to defer to the concurrent jurisdiction of a state court is, in the last analysis, a matter committed to the district court’s discretion.” Will, supra, at 664. Justice Blackmun, concurring in the judgment, criticized the plurality for not recognizing that Colorado River had undercut the “sweeping language” of Brillhart. 437 U. S., at 667. Four Justices in dissent urged that the Colorado River “exceptional circumstances” test supplied the governing standard.

The plurality’s suggestion in Will that Brillhart might have application beyond the context of declaratory judgments was rejected by the Court in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1 (1983). In Moses H. Cone, the Court established that the Colorado River “exceptional circumstances” test, rather than the more permissive Brillhart analysis, governs a district court’s decision to stay a suit to compel arbitration under § 4 of the Arbitration Act in favor of pending state litigation. Noting that the combination of Justice Blackmun and the four dissenting Justices in Will had made five to require application of Colorado River, the Court rejected the argument that Will had worked any substantive changes in the law. “ ‘Abdication of the obligation to decide cases,’ ” the Court reasoned,'“ ‘can be justified . . . only in the exceptional circumstance where the order to the parties to repair to the State court would clearly serve an important countervailing interest.’” 460 U. S., at 14, quoting Colorado River, supra, at 813. As it had in Colorado River, the Court articulated nonexclusive factors relevant to the existence of such exceptional circumstances, including the assumption by either court of jurisdiction over a res, the relative convenience of the fora, avoidance of piecemeal litigation, the order in which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent fora, whether and to what extent federal law provides the rules of decision on the merits, and the adequacy of state proceedings. Evaluating each of these factors, the Court concluded that the District Court’s stay of federal proceedings was, under the circumstances, inappropriate.

Relying on these post-Brillhart developments, London Underwriters contend that the Brillhart regime, under which district courts have substantial latitude in deciding whether to stay or to dismiss a declaratory judgment suit in light of pending state proceedings (and need not point to “exceptional circumstances” to justify their actions), is an outmoded relic of another era. We disagree. Neither Colorado River, which upheld the dismissal of federal proceedings, nor Moses H. Cone, which did not, dealt with actions brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2201(a) (1988 ed., Supp. V). Distinct features of the Declaratory Judgment Act, we believe, justify a standard vesting district courts with greater discretion in declaratory judgment actions than that permitted under the “exceptional circumstances” test of Colorado River and Moses H. Cone. No subsequent case, in our view, has called into question the application of the Brillhart standard to the Brillhart facts.

Since its inception, the Declaratory Judgment Act has been understood to confer on federal courts unique and substantial discretion in deciding whether to declare the rights of litigants. On its face, the statute provides that a court “may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration,” 28 U. S. C. § 2201(a) (1988 ed., Supp. V) (emphasis added). See generally E. Borchard, Declaratory Judgments 312-314 (2d ed. 1941); Borchard, Discretion to Refuse Jurisdiction of Actions for Declaratory Judgments, 26 Minn. L. Rev. 677 (1942). The statute’s textual commitment to discretion, and the breadth of leeway we have always understood it to suggest, distinguish the declaratory judgment context from other areas of the law in which concepts of discretion surface. See generally Shapiro, Jurisdiction and Discretion, 60 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 543 (1985); cf. O. Fiss & D. Rendleman, Injunctions 106-108 (2d ed. 1984) (describing courts’ nonstatutory discretion, through application of open-ended substantive standards like “irreparable injury,” in the injunction context). We have repeatedly characterized the Declaratory Judgment Act as “an enabling Act, which confers a discretion on the courts rather than an absolute right upon the litigant.” Public Serv. Comm’n of Utah v. Wycoff Co., 344 U. S. 237, 241 (1952); see also Green v. Mansour, 474 U. S. 64, 72 (1985); Cardinal Chemical Co. v. Morton Int’l, Inc., 508 U. S. 83, 95, n. 17 (1993). When all is said and done, we have concluded, “the propriety of declaratory relief in a particular case will depend upon a circumspect sense of its fitness informed by the teachings and experience concerning the functions and extent of federal judicial power.” Wycoff, supra, at 243.

Acknowledging, as they must, the unique breadth of this discretion to decline to enter a declaratory judgment, London Underwriters nonetheless contend that, after Colorado River and Moses H. Cone, district courts lack discretion to decline to hear a declaratory judgment suit at the outset. See Brief for Petitioners 22 (“District courts must hear declaratory judgment cases absent exceptional circumstances; district courts may decline to enter the requested relief following a full trial on the merits, if no beneficial purpose is thereby served or if equity otherwise counsels”). We are not persuaded by this distinction. London Underwriters’ argument depends on the untenable proposition that a district court, knowing at the commencement of litigation that it will exercise its broad statutory discretion to decline declaratory relief, must nonetheless go through the futile exercise of hearing a case on the merits first. Nothing in the language of the Declaratory Judgment Act recommends London Underwriters’ reading, and we are unwilling to impute to Congress an intention to require such a wasteful expenditure of judicial resources. If a district court, in the sound exercise of its judgment, determines after a complaint is filed that a declaratory judgment will serve no useful purpose, it cannot be incumbent upon that court to proceed to the merits before staying or dismissing the action.

We agree, for all practical purposes, with Professor Borch-ard, who observed half a century ago that “[tjhere is . . . nothing automatic or obligatory about the assumption of ‘jurisdiction’ by a federal court” to hear a declaratory judgment action. Borchard, Declaratory Judgments, at 313. By the Declaratory Judgment Act, Congress sought to place a remedial arrow in the district court’s quiver; it created an opportunity, rather than a duty, to grant a new form of relief to qualifying litigants. Consistent with the nonobligatory nature of the remedy, a district court is authorized, in the sound exercise of its discretion, to stay or to dismiss an action seeking a declaratory judgment before trial or after all arguments have drawn to a close. In the declaratory judgment context, the normal principle that federal courts should adjudicate claims within their jurisdiction yields to considerations of practicality and wise judicial administration.

1 — 1 HH H-Í

As Judge Friendly observed, the Declaratory Judgment Act “does not speak,” on its face, to the question whether discretion to entertain declaratory judgment actions is vested in district courts alone or in the entire judicial system. Friendly, Indiscretion about Discretion, 31 Emory L. J. 747, 778 (1982). The Court of Appeals reviewed the District Court’s decision to stay London Underwriters’ action for abuse of discretion, and found none. London Underwriters urge us to follow those other Courts of Appeals that review decisions to grant (or to refrain from granting) declaratory relief de novo. See, e. g., Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F. 2d, at 936; Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Holbrook, 867 F. 2d, at 1333. We decline this invitation. We believe it more consistent with the statute to vest district courts with discretion in the first instance, because facts bearing on the usefulness of the declaratory judgment remedy, and the fitness of the case for resolution, are peculiarly within their grasp. Cf. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U. S. 938, 948 (1995) (“[T]he reviewing attitude that a court of appeals takes toward a district court decision should depend upon ‘the respective institutional advantages of trial and appellate courts’ ”) (citation omitted); Miller v. Fenton, 474 U. S. 104, 114 (1985) (“[T]he fact/law distinction at times has turned on a determination that, as a matter of the sound administration of justice, one judicial actor is better positioned than another to decide the issue in question”). While it may be true that sound administration of the Declaratory Judgment Act calls for the exercise of “judicial discretion, hardened by experience into rule,” Borchard, Declaratory Judgments, at 293, proper application of the abuse of discretion standard on appellate review can, we think, provide appropriate guidance to district courts. In this regard, we reject London Underwriters’ suggestion, Brief for Petitioners 14, that review for abuse of discretion “is tantamount to no review” at all.

IV

In sum, we conclude that Brillhart v. Excess Ins. Co. of America, 316 U. S. 491 (1942), governs this declaratory judgment action and that district courts’ decisions about the propriety of hearing declaratory judgment actions, which are necessarily bound up with their decisions about the propriety of granting declaratory relief, should be reviewed for abuse of discretion. We do not attempt at this time to delineate the outer boundaries of that discretion in other cases, for example, cases raising issues of federal law or cases in which there are no parallel state proceedings. Like the Court of Appeals, we conclude only that the District Court acted within its bounds in staying this action for declaratory relief where parallel proceedings, presenting opportunity for ventilation of the same state law issues, were underway in state court. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is

Affirmed.

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

         For the sake of clarity, we adopt the Court of Appeals’ manner of referencing the parties.

       We note that where the basis for declining to proceed is the pendency of a state proceeding, a stay will often be the preferable course, because it assures that the federal action can proceed without risk of a time bar if the state case, for any reason, fails to resolve the matter in controversy. See, e. g., P. Bator, D. Meltzer, P. Mishkin, & D. Shapiro, Hart and Weehs-ler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System 1451, n. 9 (3d ed. 1988).


author: Justice Kennedy Justice Stevens,

text:
    METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE CO. v. RAMBO ET AL.
    No. 94-820.
    Argued April 25,1995 —
    Decided June 12, 1996

      Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and O’Connor, Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 301.

      Robert Evans Babcock argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.

      Jeffrey R Minear argued the cause for the federal respondent in support of petitioner under this Court’s Rule 12.4. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Days, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Allen H. Feldman, Nathaniel I. Spiller, and Edward D. Sieger.

      Thomas J. Pierry argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent Rambo.

       Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for Industrial Indemnity Insurance Co. by Roger A Levy; and for the National Association of Waterfront Employers et al. by Charles T. Carroll, Jr., Thomas D. Wilcox, and Franklin W. Losey.

   Justice Kennedy

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Section 22 of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA or Act), 44 Stat. 1437, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 922, allows for modification of a disability award “on the ground of a change in conditions or because of a mistake in a determination of fact.” The question in this case is whether a party may seek modification on the ground of “change in conditions” when there has been no change in the employee’s physical condition but rather an increase in the employee’s wage-earning capacity due to the acquisition of new skills.

I

In 1980, respondent John Rambo injured his back and leg while working as a longshore frontman for petitioner Metropolitan Stevedore Company. Rambo filed a claim with the Department of Labor that was submitted to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). After Rambo and petitioner stipulated that Rambo sustained a 22>k% permanent partial disability and a corresponding $120.24 decrease in his $534.38 weekly wage, the ALJ, pursuant to LHWCA §8(c)(21), awarded Rambo 66%% of that figure, or $80.16 per week. App. 5. Because the ALJ also found that Rambo’s disability was not due solely to his work-related injury and was “materially and substantially greater than that which would have resulted from the subsequent injury alone,” LHWCA § 8(f)(1), 33 U. S. C. § 908(f)(1), he limited the period of petitioner’s liability to pay compensation to 104 weeks. Ibid.; App. 6. Later payments were to issue from the special fund administered by respondent Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), LHWCA § 8(f)(2), 33 U. S. C. § 908(f)(2). Employers (or their insurance carriers) contribute to the fund based on their outstanding liabilities. See LHWCA § 44(c)(2)(B), 33 U. S. C. § 944(c)(2)(B).

After the award, Rambo began attending crane school. With the new skills so acquired, he obtained longshore work as a crane operator. He also worked in his spare time as a heavy lift truck operator. Between 1985 and 1990, Rambo’s average weekly wages ranged between $1,307.81 and $1,690.50, more than three times his preinjury earnings, though his physical condition remained unchanged. In light of the increased wage-earning capacity, petitioner, which may seek modification even when the special fund has assumed responsibility for payments, see LHWCA §22, 33 U. S. C. §922; 20 CFR § 702.148(b) (1994), filed an application to modify the disability award under LHWCA §22. Petitioner asserted there had been a “change in conditions” so that Rambo was no longer “disabled” under the Act. The ALJ agreed that an award may be modified based on changes in the employee’s wage-earning capacity, even absent a change in physical condition. After discounting wage increases due to inflation and considering Rambo’s risk of job loss and other employment prospects, the ALJ concluded Rambo “no longer has a wage-earning capacity loss” and terminated his disability payments. App. 68. The Benefits Review Board affirmed, relying on Fleetwood v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 16 BRBS 282 (1984), aff’d, 776 F. 2d 1225 (CA4 1985), which held that “change in condition[s]” means change in wage-earning capacity, as well as change in physical condition. App. 73. A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Rambo v. Director, OWCP, 28 F. 3d 86 (1994). Rejecting the Fourth Circuit’s approach in Fleetwood, the Ninth Circuit held that LHWCA §22 authorizes modification of an award only where there has been a change in the claimant’s physical condition. We granted certiorari to resolve this split, 513 U. S. 1106 (1995), and now reverse.

II

The LHWCA is a comprehensive scheme to provide compensation “in respect of disability or death of an employee ... if the disability or death results from an injury occurring upon the navigable waters of the United States.” LHWCA § 3, 33 U. S. C. § 903(a). Section 22 of the Act provides for modification of awards “on the ground of a change in conditions or because of a mistake in a determination of fact.” 33 U. S. C. § 922. In Rambo’s view and that of the Ninth Circuit, “change in conditions” means change in physical condition and does not include changes in other conditions relevant to the initial entitlement to benefits, such as a change in wage-earning capacity. In our view, this interpretation of “change in conditions” cannot stand in the face of the language, structure, and purpose of the Act.

A

Neither Rambo nor the Ninth Circuit has attempted to base their position on the language of the statute, where analysis in a statutory construction case ought to begin, for “when a statute speaks with clarity to an issue judicial inquiry into the statute’s meaning, in all but the most extraordinary circumstance, is finished.” Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co., 505 U. S. 469, 475 (1992); Demarest v. Manspeaker, 498 U. S. 184, 190 (1991).

Section 22 of the Act provides the only way to modify an award once it has issued. The section states:

“Upon his own initiative, or upon the application of any party in interest (including an employer or carrier which has been granted relief under section 908(f) of this title), on the ground of a change in conditions or because of a mistake in a determination of fact by the deputy commissioner, the deputy commissioner may, at any time prior to one year after the date of the last payment of compensation, ... or at any time prior to one year after the rejection of a claim, review a compensation case ... and .. . issue a new compensation order which may terminate, continue, reinstate, increase, or decrease such compensation, or award compensation.” 33 U.S. C. §922.

On two occasions we have construed the phrase “mistake in a determination of fact” and observed that nothing in the statutory language supports attempts to limit it to particular kinds of factual errors or to cases involving new evidence or changed circumstances. See O’Keeffe v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, Inc., 404 U. S. 254, 255-256 (1971) (per curiam); Banks v. Chicago Grain Trimmers Assn., Inc., 390 U. S. 459, 465 (1968). The language of §22 also provides no support for Rambo’s narrow construction of the phrase “change in conditions.” The use of “conditions,” a word in the plural, suggests that Congress did not intend to limit the bases for modifying awards to a single condition, such as an employee’s physical health. See 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 47.34, p. 274 (5th rev. ed. 1992) (“ ‘Ordinarily the legislature by use of a plural term intends a reference to more than one matter or thing’”) (quoting N. Y. Statutes Law §252 (McKinney 1971)); cf. 1 U.S.C. § 1 (“[WJords importing the plural include the singular”). Rather, under the “normal” or “natural reading,” Estate of Cowart, supra, at 477, the applicable “conditions” are those that entitled the employee to benefits in the first place, the same conditions on which continuing entitlement is predicated.

Our interpretation is confirmed by the language of LHWCA §§2(10) and 8(c)(21). Section 2(10) defines “[disability” as “incapacity because of injury to earn the wages which the employee was receiving at the time of injury in the same or any other employment.” 33 U. S. C. § 902(10). For certain injuries the statute creates a conclusive presumption of incapacity to earn wages and sets compensation at 66%% of the claimant’s actual wage for a fixed number of weeks, according to a statutory schedule. See LHWCA §§8(c)(l)-(20), (22), 33 U.S.C. §§908(c)(l)-20, (22). When these types of scheduled injuries occur, a claimant simply proves the relevant physical injury and compensation follows for a finite period of time. See Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 506 U. S. 153, 156, n. 4 (1993); Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 449 U. S. 268, 269 (1980). “In all other cases,” however, the statute provides “the compensation shall be 66% per centum of the difference between the average weekly wages of the employee and the employee’s wage-earning capacity thereafter in the same employment or otherwise, payable during the continuance of partial disability.” LHWCA §8(c)(21), 33 U. S. C. § 908(c)(21). For these nonscheduled injuries, the type at issue in this case, loss of wage-earning capacity is an element of the claimant’s case, for without the statutory presumption that accompanies scheduled injuries, a claimant is not “disabled” unless he proves “incapacity because of injury to earn the wages.” LHWCA § 2(10), 33 U. S. C. §902(10). See Bath Iron Works, supra, at 156; Potomac Elec. Power Co., supra, at 269-270. These two sections make it clear that compensation, as an initial matter, is predicated on loss of wage-earning capacity, and that such compensation should continue only “during the continuance of partial disability,” LHWCA § 8(c)(21), 33 U. S. C. §908(c)(21), i. e., during the continuance of the “incapacity ... to earn the wages,” LHWCA §2(10), 33 U. S. C. §902(10). Section 22 accommodates this statutory requirement by providing for modification of an award on the ground of “a change in conditions.” 33 U. S. C. § 922.

Rambo’s insistence on what seems to us a “ ‘narrowly technical and impractical construction’ ” of this phrase, O’Keeffe, supra, at 255 (quoting Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. Norton, 106 F. 2d 137, 138 (CA3 1939)), does more than disregard the plain language of §§ 22, 2(10), and 8(c)(21). It also is inconsistent with the structure and purpose of the LHWCA. Like most other workers’ compensation schemes, the LHWCA does not compensate physical injury alone but the disability produced by that injury. See LHWCA §§3(a), 8, 33 U. S. C. §§ 903(a), 908; see also 1C A. Larson, Law of Workmen’s Compensation §57.11 (1994). Disability under the LHWCA, defined in terms of wage-earning capacity, LHWCA §2(10), is in essence an economic, not a medical, concept. Cf. 3 Larson, supra, § 81.31(e), p. 15-1150 (1995) (“[Disability in the compensation sense has an economic as well as a medical component”). It may be ascertained for nonscheduled injuries according to the employee’s actual earnings, if they “fairly and reasonably represent his wage-earning capacity,” and if they do not, then with “due regard to the nature of [the employee’s] injury, the degree of physical impairment, his usual employment and any other factors or circumstances in the case which may affect his capacity to earn wages in his disabled condition, including the effect of disability as it may naturally extend into the future.” LHWCA § 8(h), 33 U. S. C. § 908(h). The fundamental purpose of the Act is to compensate employees (or their beneficiaries) for wage-earning capacity lost because of injury; where that wage-earning capacity has been reduced, restored, or improved, the basis for compensation changes and the statutory scheme allows for modification.

B

Given that the language of §22 and the structure of the Act itself leave little doubt as to Congress’ intent, any argument based on legislative history is of minimal, if any, relevance. See Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U. S. 249, 254, (1992); Ardestani v. INS, 502 U. S. 129, 136 (1991); cf. Intercounty Constr. Corp. v. Walter, 422 U. S. 1, 8 (1975) (construing ambiguity in application of §22’s 1-year limitations period). In any event, we find Rambo’s arguments that the legislative history provides support for his view lacking in force.

From congressional Reports accompanying amendments to § 22 in 1934,1938, and 1984, Reports suggesting Congress was unwilling to extend the 1-year limitations period in which a party may seek modification, Rambo would have us infer that Congress intended a narrow construction of other parts of § 22, including the circumstances that would justify reopening an award. We rejected this very argument in Banks, supra, at 465, and its logic continues to elude us. Congress’ decision to maintain a 1-year limitations period has no apparent relevance to which changed conditions may justify modifying an award.

Rambo next contends that following McCormick S. S. Co. v. United States Employees’ Compensation Comm’n, 64 F. 2d 84 (CA9 1933), the Courts of Appeals unanimously held that “change in conditions” refers only to changes in physical conditions, so Congress’ reenactment of the phrase “change in conditions” when it amended other parts of § 22 as late as 1984 must be understood to endorse that approach. We have often relied on Congress’ “reenact[ment of] statutory language that has been given a consistent judicial construction,” Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., 511 U. S. 164, 185 (1994); see Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 566-567 (1988), in particular where Congress was aware of or made reference to that judicial construction, see Brown v. Gardner, 513 U. S. 115, 121 (1994); United States v. Calamaro, 354 U. S. 351, 359 (1957). The cases in the relevant period, however, were based on a misreading of McCormick, supra, which did not reject the idea that §22 included a change in wage-earning capacity, but merely expressed doubt that §22 “applies to a change in earnings due to economic conditions,” 64 F. 2d, at 85; they involved dicta, not holdings, see, e. g., Pillsbury v. Alaska Packers Assn., 85 F. 2d 758, 760 (CA9 1936), rev’d on other grounds, 301 U. S. 174 (1937); Burley Welding Works, Inc. v. Lawson, 141 F. 2d 964, 966 (CA5 1944); General Dynamics Corp. v. Director, OWCP, 673 F. 2d 23, 25, n. 6 (CA1 1982) (per curiam); and they were not uniform in their approach, see, e. g., Hole v. Miami Shipyards Corp., 640 F. 2d 769, 772 (CA5 1981) (“[T]he compensation award may be modified years later to reflect... greater or lesser economic injury”). Under these circumstances, we are not persuaded that congressional silence in the reenactment of the phrase “change in conditions” carries any significance.

In a related argument, Rambo criticizes petitioner’s reading of § 22 because it sweeps away an accumulation of more than 50 years of dicta. Far from counseling hesitation, however, we think this step long overdue. “[A]ge is no antidote to clear inconsistency with a statute,” Brown v. Gardner, supra, at 122, and the dictum of Pillsbury and Burley Welding Works has not even aged with integrity, see, e. g., Fleetwood v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., 16 BRBS 282 (1984); LaFaille v. Benefits Review Board, U. S. Dept. of Labor, 884 F. 2d 54, 62 (CA2 1989); Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Guidry, 967 F. 2d 1039, 1042, n. 6 (CA5 1992) (dictum). Breath spent repeating dicta does not infuse it with life. The unnecessary observations of these Courts of Appeals “are neither authoritative nor persuasive.” McLaren v. Fleischer, 256 U. S. 477, 482 (1921); cf. United States v. Estate of Donnelly, 397 U. S. 286, 295 (1970).

Finally, Rambo argues that including a change in wage-earning capacity as a change in conditions under §22 will flood the OWCP and the courts with litigation because parties will request modification every time an employee’s wages change or the economy takes a turn in one direction or the other. Experience in the 11 years since the Benefits Review Board decided Fleetwood, supra, suggests otherwise, but that argument is, in any case, better directed at Congress or the Director in her rulemaking capacity, see LHWCA § 39(a), 33 U. S. C. § 939(a); Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 514 U. S. 122, 134 (1995), than at the courts. It is also based on a misconception of the LHWCA and our holding today. We recognize only that an award in a nonscheduled-injury case may be modified where there has been a change in wage-earning capacity. A change in actual wages is controlling only when actual wages “fairly and reasonably represent . . . wage-earning capacity.” LHWCA § 8(h), 33 U. S. C § 908(h). Otherwise, wage-earning capacity may be determined according to the many factors identified in §8(h), including “any . . . factors or circumstances in the case which may affect [the employee’s] capacity to earn wages in his disabled condition, including the effect of disability as it may naturally extend into the future.” This circumspect approach does not permit a change in wage-earning capacity with every variation in actual wages or transient change in the economy. There may be cases raising difficult questions as to what constitutes a change in wage-earning capacity, but we need not address them here. Rambo acquired additional, marketable skills and the ALJ, recognizing that higher wages do not necessarily prove an increase in wage-earning capacity, took care to account for inflation and risk of job loss in evaluating Rambo’s new “wage-earning capacity in an open labor market under normal employment conditions.” App. 66.

We hold that a disability award may be modified under § 22 where there is a change in the employee’s wage-earning capacity, even without any change in the employee’s physical condition. Because Rambo raised other arguments before the Ninth Circuit that the panel did not have the opportunity to address, we reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

The statutory provision that the Court construes today was enacted in 1927. Although one 1985 case reached the result the Court adopts today, Fleetwood v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 776 F. 2d 1225 (CA4), over 60 years of otherwise consistent precedent accords with respondents’ interpretation of the Act. For the reasons stated by Judge Warriner in his dissent in Fleetwood, I would not change this settled view of the law without an appropriate directive from Congress. Judge Warriner correctly observed:

“Beginning with the first opinion dealing with the question, handed down in 1933, and continuing without wavering thereafter, the courts have uniformly interpreted the term ‘change in conditions’ in Section 22 of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U. S. C. §922 (1982), to refer exclusively to a change in the physical condition of the employee receiving compensation. This also was ‘the meaning generally attributed to similar phraseology in state workman’s compensation acts’ in existence before or shortly after the enactment of the LHWCA in 1927. See Atlantic Coast Shipping Co. v. Golubiewski, 9 F. Supp. 315, 317 (D. Md. 1934).
“The majority’s nice effort to distinguish this prior case law serves only to highlight the numerous and varied factual situations in which the federal courts have withstood temptation and have strictly adhered to this interpretation. In McCormick Steamship Co. v. United States Employees’ Compensation Commission, 64 F. 2d 84 (9th Cir. 1933), for example, the Court refused to allow the modification of a compensation order under Section 22 where the employee’s earnings were diminished as a result of deteriorating economic conditions. Id., at 85. Conversely, the fact that an employee received higher wages because of better economic conditions in the 1940’s was held not to constitute a ‘change in conditions’ so as to allow a reduction in the employee’s compensation award. Burley Welding Works v. Lawson, 141 F. 2d 964, 966 (5th Cir. 1944). The courts have refused to find a ‘change in conditions’ where the employee was imprisoned in a penitentiary for life, Atlantic Coast Shipping Co. v. Golubiewski, 9 F. Supp. at 316-19, or where the employee was committed to an insane asylum. Bay Ridge Operating Co. v. Lowe, 14 F. Supp. 280, 280-82 (S. D. N. Y. 1936).
“In every one of these cases, decided soon after the effective date of the Act, the respective courts explicitly stated and held that the term ‘change in conditions’ in Section 22 refers to the physical condition of the employee receiving compensation. In a more recent case, General Dynamics, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 673 F. 2d 23 (1st Cir. 1982), the court reiterated this interpretation: ‘[c]ourts uniformly have held a “change in conditions” means a change in the employee’s physical condition, not other conditions.’ Id., at 25[, n. 6] (citing Burley Welding Works, Inc. v. Lawson, 141 F. 2d at 966).
“Despite fifty years, and more, of precedent, the majority has overturned this established construction of the term ‘change in conditions’ and has revised it to have it apply to changes in economic conditions occurring during the term of compensation. Such a departure from settled prior case law is not warranted absent any indication from the Congress that such a change in the statute is what is desired by the lawmakers. Congress, it should not be necessary to add, indicates its desires by adopting legislation.
“Fifty years is a long time. And perhaps it can be argued that the Board’s, and the courts’, and the Congress’ erstwhile interpretation of the phrase was inhumane, or unenlightened, or an anachronism, or something else even more disparaging. But it cannot be argued, I submit, that the prior interpretation was not and is not the law.” Id., at 1235-1236 (footnotes omitted).

For those reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.


author: Justice Breyer

text:
    JOHNSON et al. v. JONES
    No. 94-455.
    Argued April 18, 1995 —
    Decided June 12, 1996

      Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

      Charles A. Rothfeld argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Mark F. Smolens.

      Cornelia T. L. Pillará argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney Gen

      eral Hunger, Deputy Solicitor General Bender, Barbara L. Herwig, and Richard A. Olderman.

      Edward G. Proctor, Jr., argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Anthony Pinelli.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Maryland et al. by J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, and Andrew H. Baida and Lawrence P. Fletcher-Hill, Assistant Attorneys General, Jeff Sessions, Attorney General of Alabama, Bruce M. Botelho, Attorney General of Alaska, Grant Woods, Attorney General of Arizona, Winston Bryant, Attorney General of Arkansas, Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of California, Gale A Norton, Attorney General of Colorado, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut, M. Jane Brady, Attorney General of Delaware, Garland Pinkston, Jr., Acting Corporation Counsel of the District of Columbia, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General of Georgia, Calvin E. Holloway, Sr., Acting Attorney General of Guam, Margery S. Bronster, Attorney General of Hawaii, Alan G. Lance, Attorney General of Idaho, James E. Ryan, Attorney General of Illinois, Pamela Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General of Iowa, Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General of Kansas, Chris Gor-man, Attorney General of Kentucky, Richard P. Ieyoub, Attorney General of Louisiana, Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General of Massachusetts, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney Generál of Minnesota, Mike Moore, Attorney General of Mississippi, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana, Don Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska, Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General of Nevada, Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General of New Hampshire, Deborah T. Poritz, Attorney General of New Jersey, Tom Udall, Attorney General of New Mexico, Michael F. Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina, Heidi Heitkamp, Attorney General of North Dakota, Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General of Ohio, W. A Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General of Oregon, Ernest D. Preate, Jr., Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Pedro Pierluisi, Attorney General of Puerto Rico, Jeffrey B. Pine, Attorney General of Rhode Island, Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina, Mark Barnett, Attorney General of South Dakota, Dan Morales, Attorney General of Texas, Jan Graham, Attorney General of Utah, Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General of Vermont, James S. Gilmore III, Attorney General of Virginia, Christine O. Gregoire, Attorney General of Washington, James E. Doyle, Attorney General of Wisconsin, and Joseph B. Meyer,
        Attorney General of Wyoming; and for the International City/County Management Association et al. by Richard Ruda and Lee Fennell.

   Justice Breyer

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns government officials — entitled to assert a qualified immunity defense in a “constitutional tort” action — who seek an immediate appeal of a district court order denying their motions for summary judgment. The order in question resolved a/aci-related dispute about the pretrial record, namely, whether or not the evidence in the pretrial record was sufficient to show a genuine issue of fact for trial. We hold that the defendants cannot immediately appeal this kind of fact-related district court determination. And, we affirm the similar holding of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

I

The plaintiff in this case, Houston Jones, is a diabetic. Police officers found him on the street while he was having an insulin seizure. The officers thought he was drunk, they arrested him, and they took him to the police station. Jones later found himself in a hospital, with several broken ribs. Subsequently, Jones brought this “constitutional tort” action against five named policemen. Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Jones claimed that these policemen used excessive force when they arrested him and that they beat him at the station.

Three of the officers (the petitioners here) moved for summary judgment arguing that, whatever evidence Jones might have about the other two officers, he could point to no evir dence that these three had beaten him or had been present while others did so. Jones responded by pointing to his deposition, in which he swore that officers (though he did not name them) had used excessive force when arresting him and, later, in the booking room at the station house. He also pointed to the three officers’ own depositions, in which they admitted they were present at the arrest and in or near the booking room when Jones was there.

The District Court denied the officers’ summary judgment motion. The court wrote that Seventh Circuit precedent indicated potential liability if the three officers “stood by and allowed others to beat the plaintiff.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 7a. And, the court held that there was “sufficient circumstantial evidence supporting [Jones’] theory of the case.” Id., at 8a.

The three officers immediately appealed the District Court’s denial of their summary judgment motion. They argued, in relevant part, that the denial was wrong because the record contained “not a scintilla of evidence . .. that one or more” of them had “ever struck, punched or kicked the plaintiff, or ever observed anyone doing so.” Brief for Appellants in No. 93-3777 (CA7), p. 10. But, the Seventh Circuit refused to consider this argument — namely, that the District Court had improperly rejected their contention that the record lacked sufficient evidence even to raise a “genuine” (i. e., triable) issue of fact. The Seventh Circuit held that it “lack[ed] appellate jurisdiction over th[is] contention,” i e., of the “evidence insufficiency” contention that “we didn’t do it.” 26 P. 3d 727, 728 (1994). It consequently dismissed their appeal.

Courts of Appeals hold different views about the immediate appealability of such pretrial “evidence insufficiency” claims made by public official defendants who assert qualified immunity defenses. Compare, e. g., Kaminsky v. Rosenblum, 929 F. 2d 922, 926 (CA2 1991) (saying that no appellate jurisdiction exists); Giuffre v. Bissell, 31 F. 3d 1241, 1247 (CA3 1994) (same); Boulos v. Wilson, 834 F. 2d 604, 609 (CA5 1987) (same); Elliott v. Thomas, 937 F. 2d 338, 341-342 (CA7 1991) (same), cert. denied, 502 U. S. 1074, 1121 (1992); Crawford-El v. Britton, 951 F. 2d 1314, 1317 (CADC 1991) (same), with Unwin v. Campbell, 863 F. 2d 124, 128 (CA1 1988) (saying that appellate jurisdiction does exist); Turner v. Dammon, 848 F. 2d 440, 444 (CA4 1988) (same); Kelly v. Bender, 23 F. 3d 1328, 1330 (CA8 1994) (same); Burgess v. Pierce County, 918 F. 2d 104, 106, and n. 3 (CA9 1990) (per curiam) (same); Austin v. Hamilton, 945 F. 2d 1155, 1157, 1162-1163 (CA10 1991) (same). We therefore granted cer-tiorari. 513 U. S. 1071 (1995).

II

A

Three backgroundprinciples guide our effort to decide this issue. First, the relevant statute grants appellate courts jurisdiction to hear appeals only from “final decisions” of district courts. 28 U. S. C. § 1291. Given this statute, interlocutory appeals — appeals before the end of district court proceedings — are the exception, not the rule. The statute recognizes that rules that permit too many interlocutory appeals can cause harm. An interlocutory appeal can make it more difficult for trial judges to do their basic job — supervising trial proceedings. It can threaten those proceedings with delay, adding costs and diminishing coherence. It also risks additional, and unnecessary, appellate court work either when it presents appellate courts with less developed records or when it brings them appeals that, had the trial simply proceeded, would have turned out to be unnecessary. See Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Roller, 472 U. S. 424, 430 (1985); Flanagan v. United States, 465 U. S. 259, 263-264 (1984); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U. S. 368, 374 .(1981).

Of course, sometimes interlocutory appellate review has important countervailing benefits. In certain cases, it may avoid injustice by quickly correcting a trial court’s error. It can simplify, or more appropriately direct, the future course of litigation. And, it can thereby reduce the burdens of future proceedings, perhaps freeing a party from those burdens entirely. Congress consequently has authorized, through other statutory provisions, immediate appeals (or has empowered courts to authorize immediate appeals) in certain classes of cases — classes in which these countervailing benefits may well predominate. None of these special “immediate appeal” statutes, however, is applicable here. See 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (immediate appeal of, e. g., orders granting or denying injunctions; authority to “certify” certain important legal questions); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 54(b) (authorizing district courts to “direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties”); 28 U. S. C. §§ 1292(e), 2072(c) (1988 ed., Supp. V) (authorizing this Court to promulgate rules designating certain kinds of orders as immediately appealable); cf. 28 U. S. C. § 1651 (authorizing federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate,” including writs of mandamus).

Second, in Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949), this Court held that certain so-called collateral orders amount to “final decisions,” immediately appeal-able under the here-relevant statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1291, even though the district court may have entered those orders before (perhaps long before) the case has ended. These special “collateral orders” were those that fell within

“that small class which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” Cohen, supra, at 546.

More recently, this Court has restated Cohen as requiring that the order “‘[1] conclusively determine the disputed question, [2] resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and [3] be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.’ ” Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139, 144 (1993) (brackets in original) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 468 (1978)).

In determining which “collateral orders” amount to “final decisions,” these requirements help qualify for immediate appeal classes of orders in which the considerations that favor immediate appeals seem comparatively strong and those that disfavor such appeals seem comparatively weak. The requirement that the issue underlying the order be “ ‘effectively unreviewable’ ” later on, for example, means that failure to review immediately may well cause significant harm. See 15A C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3911, pp. 334-335 (1992) (hereinafter Wright & Miller). The requirement that the district court’s order “conclusively determine” the question means that appellate review is likely needed to avoid that harm. Id., at 333. The requirement that the matter be separate from the merits of the action itself means that review now is less likely to force the appellate court to consider approximately the same (or a very similar) matter more than once, and also seems less likely to delay trial court proceedings (for, if the matter is truly collateral, those proceedings might continue while the appeal is pending). Id., at 333-334.

Third, in Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511 (1985), this Court held that a district court’s order denying a defendant’s motion for summary judgment was an immediately appeal-able “collateral order” (i. e., a “final decision”) under Cohen, where (1) the defendant was a public official asserting a defense of “qualified immunity,” and (2) the issue appealed concerned, not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but, rather, whether or not certain given facts showed a violation of “clearly established” law. 472 U. S., at 528; see Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982) (holding that public officials are entitled to a “qualified immunity” from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable person would have known”). Applying Cohen’s criteria, the Mitchell Court held that this kind of summary judgment order was, in a sense, “effectively unreviewable,” for review after trial would come too late to vindicate one important purpose of “qualified immunity” — namely, protecting public officials, not simply from liability, but also from standing trial. Mitchell, supra, at 525-527. For related reasons, the Court found that the order was conclusive, i. e., it “conclusively” settled the question of the defendant’s immunity from suit. 472 U. S., at 527.

The Court in Mitchell found more difficult the “separability” question, i. e., whether or not the “qualified immunity” issue was “completely separate from the merits of the action,” supra, at 310. The Court concluded that:

“it follows from the recognition that qualified immunity is in part an entitlement not to be forced to litigate the consequences of official conduct that a claim of immunity is conceptually distinct from the merits of the plaintiff’s claim that his rights have been violated.” Mitchell, supra, at 527-528 (emphasis added).

And, the Court said that this “conceptual distinctness” made the immediately appealable issue “separate” from the merits of the plaintiff’s claim, in part because an

“appellate court reviewing the denial of the defendant’s claim of immunity need not consider the correctness of the plaintiff’s version of the facts, nor even determine whether the plaintiff’s allegations actually state a claim. All it need determine is a question of law: whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, in cases where the district court has denied summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that even under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims he took.” Id., at 528 (footnote omitted).

B

We now consider the appealability of a portion of a district court’s summary judgment order that, though entered in a “qualified immunity” case, determines only a question of “evidence sufficiency,” i. e., which facts a party may, or may not, be able to prove at trial. This kind of order, we conclude, is not appealable. That is, the District Court’s determination that the summary judgment record in this case raised a genuine issue of fact concerning petitioners’ involvement in the alleged beating of respondent was not a “final decision” within the meaning of the relevant statute. We so decide essentially for three reasons.

First, consider Mitchell itself, purely as precedent. The dispute underlying the Mitchell appeal involved the application of “clearly established” law to a given (for appellate purposes undisputed) set of facts. And, the Court, in its opinion, explicitly limited its holding to appeals challenging, not a district court’s determination about what factual issues are “genuine,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(c), but the purely legal issue what law was “clearly established.” The opinion, for example, referred specifically to a district court’s “denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law.” 472 U. S., at 530 (emphasis added). It “emphasize[d]... that the appealable issue is a purely legal one: whether the facts, alleged (by the plaintiff, or, in some cases, the defendant) support a claim of violation of clearly established law.” Id., at 528, n. 9. It distinguished precedent not permitting interlocutory appeals on the ground that “a qualified immunity ruling ... is ... a legal issue that can be decided with reference only to undisputed facts and in isolation from the remaining issues of the case.” Id., at 530, n. 10. And, it explained its separability holding by saying that “[a]n appellate court reviewing the denial of the defendant’s claim of immunity need not consider the correctness of the plaintiff’s version of the facts.” Id., at 528. Although there is some language in the opinion that sounds as if it might imply the contrary, it does not do so when read in context. See, e.g., id., at 526 (referring to defendant’s entitlement to summary judgment, not to appealability, by saying that “defendant is entitled to summary judgment if discovery fails to uncover evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue”).

Second, consider, in the context of an “evidence sufficiency” claim, Cohen’s conceptual theory of appealability— the theory that brings immediate appealability within the scope of the jurisdictional statute’s “final decision” requirement. That theory finds a “final” district court decision in part because the immediately appealable decision involves issues significantly different from those that underlie the plaintiff’s basic case. As we have just pointed out, Mitchell rested upon the view that “a claim of immunity is conceptually distinct from the merits of the plaintiff’s claim.” 472 U. S., at 527. It held that this was so because, although sometimes practically intertwined with the merits, a claim of immunity nonetheless raises a question that is significantly different from the questions underlying plaintiff’s claim on the merits (i. e., in the absence of qualified immunity). Id., at 528.

Where, however, a defendant simply wants to appeal a district court’s determination that the evidence is sufficient to permit a particular finding of fact after trial, it will often prove difficult to find any such “separate” question — one that is significantly different from the fact-related legal issues that likely underlie the plaintiff’s claim on the merits. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 248 (1986) (district court’s task, in deciding whether there is a “genuine” issue of fact, is to determine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party”); see also Elliott v. Thomas, 937 F. 2d, at 341 (“[Wjhether the defendants did the deeds alleged ... is precisely the question for trial”) (emphasis in original), cert. denied, 502 U. S. 1074, 1121 (1992); Wright v. South Arkansas Regional Health Center, Inc., 800 F. 2d 199, 203 (CA8 1986) (saying that this question “is ... less clearly separable from the merits” than the question in Mitchell)', see also Brief for United States 18 (“In one sense, a ruling regarding the sufficiency of the evidence is closely intertwined with the merits”).

It has been suggested that Mitchell implicitly recognized that “the need to protect officials against the burdens of further pretrial proceedings and trial” justifies a relaxation of the separability requirement. 15A Wright & Miller §3914.10, at 656; see id., §3911, at 344-345; id., §3911.2, at 387; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 20 (“[W]here the right not to be tried is at stake, [closer] association with the merits is tolerated”) (argument of the United States). Assuming that to be so, and despite a similar interest in avoiding trial in the kind of case here at issue, we can find no separability. To take what petitioners call a small step beyond Mitchell, Brief for Petitioners 18, would more than relax the separability requirement — it would in many cases simply abandon it.

Finally, consider the competing considerations that underlie questions of finality. See supra, at 309-310. We of course decide appealability for categories of orders rather than individual orders. See Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U. S. 863, 868 (1994). Thus, we do not now in each individual case engage in ad hoc balancing to decide issues of appealability. See generally P. Bator, D. Meltzer, P. Mishkin, & D. Shapiro, Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and The Federal System 1810 (3d ed. 1988). But, that does not mean that, in delineating appealable categories, we should not look to “the competing considerations underlying all questions of finality — ‘the inconvenience and costs of piecemeal review on the one hand and the danger of denying justice by delay on the other.’ ” Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U. S. 156, 171 (1974) (quoting Dickinson v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., 338 U. S. 507, 511 (1950)). And, those considerations, which we discussed above in Part II-A, argue against extending Mitchell to encompass orders of the kind before us.

For one thing, the issue here at stake — the existence, or nonexistence, of a triable issue of fact — is the kind of issue that trial judges, not appellate judges, confront almost daily. Institutionally speaking, appellate judges enjoy no comparative expertise in such matters. Cf. Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U. S. 552, 560-561 (1988); id., at 584 (White, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (noting that the “special expertise and experience of appellate courts” lies in “assessing the relative force of . . . applications of legal norms”) (internal quotation marks omitted). And, to that extent, interlocutory appeals are less likely to bring important error-correcting benefits here than where purely legal matters are at issue, as in Mitchell. Cf. Richardson-Merrell, 472 U. S., at 434 (stating that the fact that “[m]ost pretrial orders [of the kind there at issue] are ultimately affirmed by appellate courts” militated against immediate appealability).

For another thing, questions about whether or not a record demonstrates a “genuine” issue of fact for trial, if appealable, can consume inordinate amounts of appellate time. Many constitutional tort cases, unlike the simple “we didn’t do it” case before us, involve factual controversies about, for example, intent — controversies that, before trial, may seern nebulous. To resolve those controversies — to determine whether there is or is not a triable issue of fact about such a matter— may require reading a vast pretrial record, with numerous conflicting affidavits, depositions, and other discovery materials. This fact means, compared with Mitchell, greater delay.

For a third thing, the close connection between this kind of issue and the factual matter that will likely surface at trial means that the appellate court, in the many instances in which it upholds a district court’s decision denying summary judgment, may well be faced with approximately the same factual issue again, after trial, with just enough change (brought about by the trial testimony) to require it, once again, to canvass the record. That is to say, an interlocutory appeal concerning this kind of issue in a sense makes unwise use of appellate courts’ time, by forcing them to decide in the context of a less developed record, an issue very similar to one they may well decide anyway later, on a record that will permit a better decision. See 15A Wright & Miller §3914.10, at 664 (“[I]f [immunity appeals] could be limited to ... issues of law ... there would be less risk that the court of appeals would need to waste time in duplicating investigations of the same facts on successive appeals”).

The upshot is that, compared with Mitchell, considerations of delay, comparative expertise of trial and appellate courts, and wise use of appellate resources argue in favor of limiting interlocutory appeals of “qualified immunity” matters to cases presenting more abstract issues of law. Considering these “competing considerations,” we are persuaded that “[i]mmunity appeals . . . interfere less with the final judgment rule if they [are] limited to cases presenting neat abstract issues of law.” 16A Wright & Miller § 3914.10, at 664; cf. Puerto Rico Aqueduct, 506 U. S., at 147 (noting the argument for a distinction between fact-based and law-based appeals, but seeing no “basis for drawing” it with respect to the particular kind of order at hand); 15A Wright & Miller §3914.10, at 85 (1995 Supp.).

We recognize that, whether a district court’s denial of summary judgment amounts to (a) a determination about preexisting “clearly established” law, or (b) a determination about “genuine” issues of fact for trial, it still forces public officials to trial. See Brief for Petitioners 11-16. And, to that extent, it threatens to undercut the very policy (protecting public officials from lawsuits) that (the Mitchell Court held) militates in favor of immediate appeals. Nonetheless, the countervailing considerations that we have mentioned (precedent, fidelity to statute, and underlying policies) are too strong to permit the extension of Mitchell to encompass appeals from orders of the sort before us.

C

We mention one final point. Petitioners argue that our effort to separate reviewable from unreviewable summary-judgment determinations will prove unworkable. First, they say that the parties can easily manipulate our holding. A defendant seeking to create a reviewable summary judgment order might do so simply by adding a reviewable claim to a motion that otherwise would create an unreviewable order. “[H]ere, for example,” they say, “petitioners could have contended that the law was unclear on how much force may be exerted against suspects who resist arrest.” Brief for Petitioners 29, n. 11.

We do not think this is a serious problem. We concede that, if the District Court in this case had determined that beating respondent violated clearly established law, petitioners could have sought review of that determination. But, it does not automatically follow that the Court of Appeals would also have reviewed the here more important determination that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether petitioners participated in (or were present at) a beating. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that it may sometimes be appropriate to exercise “pendent appellate jurisdiction” over such a matter, but cf. Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U. S. 35, 50-51 (1995), it seems unlikely that courts of appeals would do so in a case where the appealable issue appears simply a means to lead the court to review the underlying factual matter, see, e. g., Natale v. Ridgefield, 927 F. 2d 101, 104 (CA2 1991) (saying exercise of pendent appellate jurisdiction is proper only in “exceptional circumstances”); United States ex rel. Valders Stone & Marble, Inc. v. C-Way Constr. Co., 909 F. 2d 259, 262 (CA7 1990) (saying exercise of such jurisdiction is proper only where there are “ ‘compelling reasons’ ”).

Second, petitioners add, if appellate courts try to separate an appealed order’s reviewable determination (that a given set of facts violates clearly established law) from its unre-viewable determination (that an issue of fact is “genuine”), they will have great difficulty doing so. District judges may simply deny summary judgment motions without indicating their reasons for doing so. How, in such a case, will the court of appeals know what set of facts to assume when it answers the purely legal question about “clearly established” law?

This problem is more serious, but not serious enough to lead us to a different conclusion. When faced with an argument that the district court mistakenly identified clearly established law, the court of appeals can simply take, as given, the facts that the district court assumed when it denied summary judgment for that (purely legal) reason. Knowing that this is “extremely helpful to a reviewing court,” Anderson, 477 U. S., at 250, n. 6, district courts presumably will often state those facts. But, if they do not, we concede that a court of appeals may have to undertake a cumbersome review of the record to determine what facts the district court, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, likely assumed. Regardless, this circumstance does not make a critical difference to our result, for a rule that occasionally requires a detailed evidence-based review of the record is still, from a practical point of view, more manageable than the rule that petitioners urge us to adopt. Petitioners’ approach would make that task, not the exception, but the rule. We note, too, that our holding here has been the law in several Circuits for some time. See supra, at 308-309. Yet, petitioners have not pointed to concrete examples of the unmanageability they fear.

III

For these reasons, we hold that a defendant, entitled to invoke a qualified immunity defense, may not appeal a district court’s summary judgment order insofar as that order determines whether or not the pretrial record sets forth a “genuine” issue of fact for trial. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is therefore

Affirmed.


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    KIMBERLIN v. QUINLAN et al.
    No. 93-2068.
    Argued April 26, 1995 —
    Decided June 12, 1995

      Howard T. Rosenblatt argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Jerrold J. Ganzfried and Ellen S. Winter.

      Deputy Solicitor General Bender argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Hunger, and Cornelia T. L. Pillard.

      Michael L. Martinez argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Steven D. Gordon and William J. Dempster

        Anthony C. Epstein, Steven R. Shapiro, Arthur B. Spitzer, Leslie A Brueekner, and Marc D. Stern filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
      A brief of amici curiae urging affirmance was filed for the State of Hawaii et al. by Margery S. Bronster, Attorney General of Hawaii, and Girard D. Lau, Deputy Attorney General, Winston Bryant, Attorney General of Arkansas, Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of California, M. Jane Brady, Attorney General of Delaware, Alan G. Lance, Attorney General of Idaho, Pamela Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General of Kansas, Chris Gorman, Attorney General of Kentucky, Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General of Minnesota, Mike Moore, Attorney General of Mississippi, Jeremiah W. Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana, Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General of New Hampshire, Victoria A Graffeo, Attorney General of New York, Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General of Ohio, Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Jeffrey B. Pine, Attorney General of Rhode Island, Mark Barnett, Attorney General of South Dakota, Jan Graham, Attorney General of Utah, Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General of Vermont, James S. Gilmore III, Attorney General of Virginia, James E. Doyle, Attorney General of Wisconsin, Richard Weil, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Alva A. Swan, Acting Attorney General of the Virgin Islands.

   Per Curiam.

The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration in light of Johnson v. Jones, ante, p. 304.