1

28 U.S.C § 1332 and 28 U.S.C § 1446 outlines federal court jurisdiction for diversity of citizenship and the procedure for removing a civil case to federal court from state court. From what I'm finding, it seems states generally respect these two codes and will consider jurisdiction ceded if the federal court grants removal.

If I'm understanding it correctly, United States Code or case law isn't binding on state courts, so could a state court conceivably attempt to retain jurisdiction of the matter (if it so desired) and ignore the removal? For instance, for a matter a state has a vested interested in, could a the plaintiff conceivably make a motion in state court against removal and for the original court to retain jurisdiction, despite a federal court granting removal, and could the state grant that motion and try to move along with the case? Perhaps I am misunderstanding whether the states are required to follow the relevant United States Codes?

Improve this question

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
5

States are required to follow Federal law

The Supremacy Clause says so. If a Federal Court has jurisdiction, no state court does.

A party to the case (including a state if applicable) can oppose the application and appeal the decision if they believe the Federal Court does not have jurisdiction, but a state court has no involvement in the process.

Improve this answer
1

If I'm understanding it correctly, United States Code or case law isn't binding on state courts, so could a state court conceivably attempt to retain jurisdiction of the matter (if it so desired) and ignore the removal?

As Dale M's answer notes, US code is very much binding on state courts, thanks to the supremacy clause. What you're probably thinking about is that state courts do not decide cases based on federal law. If Alice wants to sue Bob under federal law, or if the federal government wants to prosecute someone for a federal crime, that must be done in a federal court. But the fact that state courts don't enforce federal law does not imply that they aren't subject to federal law. They are, to the extent that federal law seeks to exert control over them, subject to the limits put in place by the federal constitution.

Since removal is a process specified in federal law, any arguments in favor of or in opposition to removal will be heard in a federal court.

Improve this answer
5
  • 1
    It is worth noting that many cases in federal court are decided on the applicable state, not federal, law.
    – Tiger Guy
    Commented Jul 7 at 15:44
  • 1
    FWIW, all but a few non-penal federal laws can be enforced in state court. There is even one federal law that can only be enforced in state court (the junk fax law).
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Jul 7 at 16:27
  • -1 State courts enforce federal law every day.
    – bdb484
    Commented Jul 8 at 15:06
  • @bdb484 would you care to elaborate?
    – phoog
    Commented Jul 8 at 20:51
  • Not sure what there is to elaborate on. Every state-court judge in the country would be very confused to hear that they can't enforce federal laws. I'd love to know what law you're relying on for this.
    – bdb484
    Commented Jul 8 at 21:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .