## Facts

- Kristine L. Fankell, a former clerk at the Idaho Liquor Dispensary, sued Idaho state officials in Idaho state court for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- She alleged her termination deprived her of a property interest in public employment without due process, violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The officials moved to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds, arguing they reasonably believed Fankell was a probationary employee without a protected property interest and that no clearly established law was violated.
- The state trial court denied the qualified-immunity motion.
- The Idaho Supreme Court dismissed the officials’ attempted interlocutory appeal under Idaho Appellate Rule 11(a)(1), treating the denial as nonfinal and not otherwise appealable.
- The officials sought U.S. Supreme Court review, asserting a federal entitlement to an immediate appeal of the qualified-immunity denial in a state-court § 1983 action.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants in a § 1983 action filed in state court have a federal right to an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity.
2. Whether § 1983 preempts a state’s neutral appellate “final judgment” rule that does not permit immediate appeal of qualified-immunity denials.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Idaho Supreme Court.
- Defendants in a state-court § 1983 action do not have a federal right to an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity.
- The federal immediate-appeal rule for certain qualified-immunity denials in federal court derives from the federal appellate jurisdiction statute (28 U.S.C. § 1291), not from § 1983.
- A state’s interpretation of its own final-judgment rule governs appealability in that state’s courts; federal courts cannot impose a federal construction of “final” onto state appellate rules.
- Section 1983 does not preempt a neutral state rule of judicial administration that limits interlocutory appeals and does not discriminate against federal claims.

## Legal Principles

- State courts adjudicating § 1983 claims must apply federal substantive law, but they generally retain control over state procedural and appellate structures.
- The federal collateral-order/interlocutory appeal doctrine for qualified-immunity denials in federal court is a procedural feature of federal appellate jurisdiction, not an automatic component of § 1983 enforceable in state courts.
- Neutral state rules governing appellate jurisdiction and finality are not displaced by § 1983 absent discrimination against federal claims or direct conflict with federal law.
- Preemption is disfavored in the area of state judicial administration, particularly where the challenged rule applies evenhandedly.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 1983 does not grant state-court defendants a federal entitlement to an interlocutory appeal from an order denying qualified immunity; whether such orders are immediately appealable is determined by the forum state’s neutral appellate rules.


Johnson v. Fankell, 520 U.S. 911 (1997)