No. 13-30332within the City of Lafayette Police Department (collectively, “Lafayette PDDefendants”). We VACATE in part and REMAND for further proceedings.I. Jurisdiction A prior motions panel of this court denied the Lafayette PD Defendants’motion to dismiss this interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction. Althoughthe Lafayette PD Defendants do not renew their jurisdictional arguments intheir merits brief, we may consider whether we have appellate jurisdiction
at any time.
Save the Bay, Inc. v. U.S. Army
, 639 F.2d 1100, 1102(5th Cir. 1981) (“Because we may not proceed without requisite jurisdiction, itis incumbent upon federal courts trial and appellate
to constantly examine
thebasis of jurisdiction, doing so on our own motion if necessary.” (emphasisadded)).We agree with the motions panel, concluding that we have jurisdictionpursuant to the collateral order doctrine, which provides appellate jurisdictionto review “a small set of prejudgment orders . . .  that are conclusive,  thatresolve important questions separate from the merits, and  that are effectivelyunreviewable on appeal from the final judgment in the underlying action.”
Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter
, 558 U.S. 100, 103–06 (2009) (citation andinternal quotation marks omitted). We have repeatedly found the doctrineapplies in cases in which pre-trial orders arguably infringe on First Amendmentrights.
See In re Hearst Newspapers, L.L.C.
, 641 F.3d 168, 174 (5th Cir. 2011);
Davis v. E. Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd.
, 78 F.3d 920, 926 (5th Cir. 1996). In
United States v. Brown
, 218 F.3d 415, 420–21 (5th Cir. 2000), we concluded thatwe had jurisdiction to consider a criminal defendant’s pre-trial appeal of a gagorder imposed by the district court on litigants in the case. We similarlyconclude that we have appellate jurisdiction over the Officers’ challenge here.2
Case: 13-30332 Document: 00512391600 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/30/2013
2 of 16