To fall within this small class, the non-final order must “[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.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978).

It explained that, when the Court has allowed interlocutory appeal of a district court’s immunity denial, “some particular value of a high order was marshaled in support of the interest in avoiding trial: honoring the separation of powers, preserving the efficiency of government and the initiative of its officials, respecting a State’s

In Los Lobos Renewable Power, LLC v. Americulture, Inc., 885 F.3d 659 (10th Cir. 2018), this court said that the district court’s Erie decision not to apply a state anti-SLAPP statute in a diversity action was immediately appealable because it presented an “abstract question of federal law” that was completely separate from the merits.

“[C]ircuit and district courts have taken different approaches in deciding what constitutes an alternate remedy, but typically read the statute broadly.” Joel M. Androphy & Carla Lassabe, Federal False Claims Act and Qui Tam Litigation § 13.02, LEXIS (database updated Nov. 2024); see, e.g., United States ex rel.

a. Legal background We have rejected a “generalized separation of powers rationale to expand the collateral order doctrine,” Mohamed, 100 F.4th at 1231, requiring instead that the concerns be “commensurate with [those such as] intruding on essential Presidential prerogatives, or posing unique risks to the effective functioning of government, [or] resolv[ing] a constitutional confrontation between two branches of the Government.” Id. at 1231-32 (quotations omitted).