Plain-English summary
Court unanimously holds post-removal changes to complaint do not strip federal jurisdiction or supplemental jurisdiction
The Court unanimously held that when a defendant removes a case to federal court based on a federal question, a plaintiff’s later amendment dropping the federal claim does not defeat the court’s original federal-question jurisdiction and does not automatically prevent the court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims. The Eighth Circuit’s judgment was affirmed.
Why this matters
The ruling clarifies when federal courts keep power to decide state-law claims after removal, even if the federal claim is later dropped. That stability matters for defendants who remove suits to federal court and for plaintiffs who amend complaints after removal—courts now have clearer rules for deciding whether to keep or dismiss remaining state claims.
Who may feel it
- Civil litigants (plaintiffs and defendants) in federal removal cases
- Businesses and manufacturers facing state-law claims removed to federal court
- Federal and state courts handling removed cases
- Lawyers who litigate removal, subject-matter jurisdiction, and supplemental jurisdiction issues
Key questions
- Does a plaintiff’s post-removal amendment that eliminates the federal claim defeat the federal question jurisdiction that existed at the time of removal?