## Facts

- James R. Ahrenholz, a former public-university employee, sued university officials alleging his termination was retaliation for protected First Amendment speech.
- The Board of Trustees moved for summary judgment in federal district court.
- The district court denied summary judgment, finding the claim sufficient to proceed to trial.
- The district court certified the denial order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), reasoning that acceptance of the Board’s position would end the case.
- The Board petitioned the Seventh Circuit to accept the interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the denial of summary judgment presented a “controlling question of law” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
2. Whether § 1292(b) permits interlocutory review when the asserted error is primarily application of legal standards to a fact-bound summary-judgment record.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court held the challenged order did not present a proper “question of law” under § 1292(b).
- The court concluded the proposed appeal would require record-intensive review of factual disputes typical of summary-judgment rulings (e.g., motivation and causation in a retaliation claim), making interlocutory review improper.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1292(b) certification requires: (1) a question of law, (2) that is controlling, (3) that is contestable (substantial ground for difference of opinion), and (4) whose resolution promises to speed up the litigation.
- A nonstatutory condition also applies: the § 1292(b) petition must be filed in the district court within a reasonable time after the order sought to be appealed.
- A “question of law” for § 1292(b) purposes is a “pure” legal issue that can be decided without substantial review of the factual record; disputes about evidentiary sufficiency or application of law to particular facts generally do not qualify.
- Even if reversal could terminate the case, interlocutory review is improper unless the appeal satisfies the statutory gatekeeping criteria, especially the “question of law” requirement.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit refused interlocutory review because the denial of summary judgment turned on fact-bound application of legal standards rather than a discrete, abstract legal question, so the § 1292(b) requirements were not met and appellate jurisdiction was lacking.


Ahrenholz v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ill., 219 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2000)