Geo Group, Inc. v. Menocal · ¶52
Our collateral-order decisions refect this approach. We have applied the immunity label to defenses when allowing an immediate appeal was necessary to preserve “some particular value of a high order,” such as “honoring the separation of powers, preserving the efficiency of government and the initiative of its officials, respecting a State's dignitary interests, and mitigating the government's advantage” over individual defendants in high-stakes matters. Will, 546 U. S., at 352–353; see, e. g., Nixon, 457 U. S., at 742–743, 749, 758 (citing separation-of-powers concerns when allowing an appeal of an order denying Presidential immunity); Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 526 (explaining that the avoidance of distraction, overdeterrence, and timidity in Government service justified immediate appeals of orders denying qualified immunity); Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, 506 U. S., at 146…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.