Limitations on Appeals by Non-Parties: Jurisdictional Boundaries for Interlocutory Injunctions and Third-Party Subpoena Challenges

Introduction

United States v. Younes Ali is a consolidated appeal before the Eleventh Circuit stemming from criminal proceedings against Jonathan Cruz in the Southern District of Florida. Younes Ali, an “interested party” rather than a defendant, sought to quash multiple subpoenas issued to Google for his email and YouTube account records and to enjoin enforcement of Florida’s two-party consent statute on First Amendment grounds. The district court struck Cruz’s pro se motions (filed on Ali’s behalf) and denied Ali’s own motions to quash. On appeal, Ali pressed jurisdictional and substantive challenges to those orders. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed Ali’s appeals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and found his subpoena challenges moot. This commentary explores the background, the court’s reasoning, and the wider implications for appeals by non-parties, interlocutory relief, reporter’s privilege, and mootness in federal courts.

Summary of the Judgment

Standing and Jurisdiction for Injunctive Relief: The court held that there was no appealable order refusing an injunction against enforcement of Florida’s two-party consent law because Cruz’s motion was struck and never reached the merits. Without a formal denial, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (interlocutory injunction appeals) did not apply.
Collateral Order Doctrine & Final Judgment Rule: Ali’s challenge to the struck motion could not be reviewed under the collateral order doctrine (28 U.S.C. § 1291) because no definitive interlocutory order existed.
Mootness of Subpoena Challenges: Google had already complied with the subpoenas seeking Ali’s account information. Once complied with, any challenge to the subpoenas became moot, since “words, once uttered, cannot be retrieved” (In re Grand Jury Proc., 142 F.3d 1416, 1422).
Dismissal without Prejudice: The appeals were dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

28 U.S.C. § 1291 (Final Judgment Rule): Only final decisions are appealable, unless an exception applies.
28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1): Grants appeals from interlocutory orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions.”
United States v. Shalhoub (855 F.3d 1255): Strict application of the final judgment rule in criminal cases; collateral‐order doctrine narrow.
Doe No. I v. United States (749 F.3d 999): Reporter’s privilege can create standing to challenge subpoenas before compliance.
United States v. Amodeo (916 F.3d 967): Courts must confirm appellate jurisdiction before reviewing district court jurisdiction.
In re Grand Jury Proceedings (142 F.3d 1416): Once a subpoena is complied with, information cannot be “retrieved”—mootness.
United States v. Lynd (301 F.2d 818): Declining to grant an order can constitute a “refusal” under § 1292, but only if the court rules on the motion’s merits.

Legal Reasoning

The Eleventh Circuit began by emphasizing that federal courts are of limited jurisdiction. It reviewed whether Ali could appeal (1) the striking of Cruz’s motion to enjoin enforcement of Florida law, and (2) the denial of his motions to quash Google subpoenas.

For the injunction challenge, the court found:

No formal order denying the injunction existed; the district court struck the motion as procedurally improper.
Without an actual refusal on the merits, 28 U.S.C. § 1292’s provision for interlocutory injunction appeals did not apply.
The collateral order doctrine under § 1291 also did not apply because there was no appealable interlocutory ruling.

Thus, there was no basis for appellate jurisdiction over the injunction request.

For the subpoena challenges, although Ali initially had standing under Doe No. I to challenge subpoenas before Google’s response, once Google complied, any challenge became moot. The court relied on In re Grand Jury Proceedings to explain that once information is disclosed by a third party, the harm cannot be undone. No relief was available—even if Ali had substantive defenses—so the appeal was dismissed.

Impact

United States v. Ali clarifies several critical and emerging issues:

Non-Party Appeals: Third parties must identify concrete, appealable orders (final decisions or qualifying interlocutory refusals). A struck pro se motion does not metamorphose into an appealable denial of relief.
Reporter’s Privilege Suitability: Privilege claims can confer standing before compliance, but do not trump mootness once the subpoenaed records have been delivered.
Final Judgment & Collateral Order Doctrine in Criminal Cases: The case reiterates the Eleventh Circuit’s strict approach to § 1291 and § 1292 in criminal proceedings, limiting interlocutory appeals.
Mootness Doctrine: Reinforces the principle that compliance by a third‐party custodian moots challenges to subpoenas for non‐tangible information.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: The court’s power to hear a case. Federal appellate jurisdiction is limited by statute (28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292).
Final Judgment Rule (28 U.S.C. § 1291): Only final decisions of a district court are appealable, unless a narrow exception (collateral order) applies.
Interlocutory Appeal (28 U.S.C. § 1292): Allows appeal of certain non-final orders, e.g., refusals to grant or dissolve injunctions, but only when a court has actually ruled on the motion.
Collateral Order Doctrine: A judicial exception to the final judgment rule that permits immediate appeal of a small class of orders that are conclusive, irreparable if delayed, and separate from the merits.
Mootness: If events occur after filing that prevent the court from granting meaningful relief, the case is moot and must be dismissed.
Reporter’s Privilege: A qualified First Amendment privilege protecting journalistic sources. It can provide preliminary standing to challenge subpoenas seeking unpublished information.

Conclusion

United States v. Younes Ali underscores the Eleventh Circuit’s rigorous adherence to statutory jurisdictional limits. Non-parties challenging subpoenas or seeking injunctions must identify valid, appealable orders. Compliance by third-party record holders robs courts of authority to grant relief, as lost information cannot be restored. The decision affirms that procedural posture—such as striking an improper pro se filing—matters as much as substantive argument in determining appellate jurisdiction. Future litigants, especially journalists invoking privilege, should act swiftly to challenge subpoenas before compliance and ensure formal rulings exist if they intend to appeal interlocutory orders.