Professor Kagan Writes Perfect Synopsis of Arising Under Jurisdiction, Supplemental Jurisdiction, and Federal Removal
Justice Kagan’s opinion in Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger was such a joy to read, and a reminder of how good of a CivPro professor she must have been.
Here are the facts. A case was filed in state court with both federal and state claims on the face of the complaint. The defendant removed the case to federal court, invoking supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The plaintiff amended the complaint in federal court, dropping all federal claims, leaving only state claims. Does the case stay in federal court by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction? The Court, per Justice Kagan, says no. “When an amendment excises the federal-law claims that enabled removal, the federal court loses its supplemental jurisdiction over the related state-law claims.”
All CivPro students should read Part I-A of Kagan’s opinion, from the bottom of page 1 through the top of page 4. It is a tight and crisp summary of the relationship between §1331 (arising under jurisdiction), §1367(a) (supplemental jurisdiction), and §1441(a) (removal jurisdiction). Here is the full section (and stick around for some other observations about the case at the end):
“Federal courts,” we have often explained, “are courts of limited jurisdiction.” E.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U. S. 375, 377 (1994). Limited first by the Constitution, to only the kinds of “Cases” and “Contro-versies” listed in Article III. And for all lower federal courts, limited as well by statute. Congress determines, through its grants of jurisdiction, which suits those courts can resolve. So, for example, Congress has always given federal courts power to decide “diversity” cases, between “citizens of different States” whose dispute involves more than a stated sum (the so-called amount-in-controversy). §1332(a). And of special importance here, Congress has long conferred jurisdiction on federal courts to resolve cases “arising under” federal law. §1331.
“Arising under” jurisdiction—more often known as fed-eral-question jurisdiction—enables federal courts to decide cases founded on federal law. A suit most typically falls within that statutory grant “when federal law creates the cause of action asserted.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U. S. 251, 257 (2013). On rare occasions, the grant also covers a suit containing state-law claims alone, because one or more of them “necessarily raise[s]” a “substantial” and “actually disputed” federal question. Id., at 258. Either way, the determination of jurisdiction is based only on the allegations in the plaintiff ‘s “well-pleaded complaint”—not on any is-sue the defendant may raise. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U. S. 1, 9–10 (1983). That longstanding rule makes the complaint—the plaintiff ‘s own claims and allegations—th
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
