Mark Bambach, et al. v. Gina Moegle, et al.

Whether a Court fails to follow the law, is a legal question. Whether a Court’s holding expands jurisdiction is a matter of law. Where the only issue presented by a party throughout the entire case (until the appeal) is the same disputed fact, is an evidence sufficiency claim recast as a legal argument, and it should fail as a matter of law. See McGraw v. Madison Twp, 231 F. App'x 419; 422 (CA 6, 2007) (The defendants' efforts to recast their evidence sufficiency claims as a legal argument are without merit. The defendants argue that the district court failed to consider each officer's individual liability and that the process by which the district court decided the motion for summary judgment was flawed). “§ 1291 requires courts of appeals to view claims of a right not to be tried' with skepticism, if not a jaundiced eye, for virtually every right that could be enforced appropriately by pretrial dismissal might loosely be described as conferring a right not to stand trial.” Swint v. Chambers Co. Comm., 514 US 35, 43 (1995) (cleaned up). The Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Bambach must be vacated lest it become the wild west at the expense of families who will be at the mercy of the court and the luck of the draw. It’s been 10 years since this Court sent a very specific and clear message in Tolan v. Cotton. If we must be stuck with the ever-growing umbrella granting the states untethered power to violate rights without punishment, they should at least have to comply with the required application of