Supreme Court Hears Argument on Post-Removal Complaint Amendments

Earlier this year, we reported on the U.S. Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, addressing a circuit split on whether plaintiffs can defeat federal question jurisdiction by amending their complaint after removal. The Eighth Circuit diverged from the prevailing appellate consensus, ruling that plaintiffs’ post-removal amendments, which eliminated all federal claims, required remand.

On October 7, 2024, the Court heard oral argument. During argument, the justices explored distinctions between federal question and diversity removals, the impact of the 1990 supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, and the balance between defendants’ removal rights and plaintiffs’ control over their complaints.

Against this backdrop, the justices focused on a footnote from Justice Scalia in a 2007 case. Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007). Justice Scalia highlighted different approaches to jurisdiction over cases in which federal claims have been dropped, depending on whether the case was filed in federal court or removed from state court: "It is true that, when a defendant removes a case to federal court based on the presence of a federal claim, an amendment eliminating the original basis for federal jurisdiction generally does not defeat jurisdiction. But removal cases raise forum-manipulation concerns that simply do not exist when it is the plaintiff who chooses a federal forum and then pleads away jurisdiction through amendment." Id. at 474 n.6. 

Based on the justices’ questioning, the outcome may depend on whether the footnote carries precedential weight. The justices also emphasized the significance and weight of circuit court precedent, describing the Eighth Circuit decision as an outlier, while expressing some skepticism about the Royal Canin defendants’ forum-shopping concerns—specifically, whether plaintiffs returning to their original court constitutes manipulation.