Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 430

524US2

Unit: $U91

[09-06-00 17:16:26] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 381 (1998)

385

Opinion of the Court

defendants in their ofﬁcial capacities will be granted.”
Id., at 30.

Schacht appealed. He did not assert that the District
Court was wrong to have dismissed the claims against the
State. He argued only that the court’s disposition of the
“personal capacity” claims, i. e., the grant of summary judg-
ment, was legally erroneous. During the appeal, the Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit itself raised the question
whether the removal from state to federal court had been
legally permissible. See 116 F. 3d 1151, 1153 (1997). After
supplemental brieﬁng, the Court of Appeals concluded that
removal had been improper and the federal courts lacked
jurisdiction over Schacht’s case.

Ibid.

The Court of Appeals pointed out that Schacht’s original
state-court complaint, while presenting only claims arising
under federal law, asserted some of those claims against the
Id., at 1152. The court added that the Eleventh
State.
Amendment, as interpreted by this Court, prohibited the as-
sertion of those claims in federal court.
Ibid. (citing U. S.
Const., Amdt. 11; Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S 1, 10 (1890)).
The Court of Appeals concluded that the presence of even
one such claim in an otherwise removable case deprived the
federal courts of removal jurisdiction over the entire case.
116 F. 3d, at 1152–1153 (relying on Frances J. v. Wright, 19
F. 3d 337, 341 (CA7 1994)). Hence,
it held, the District
Court’s judgment must be vacated and the entire case re-
turned to the state court for the litigation to begin all over
again.

116 F. 3d, at 1153–1154.

We granted certiorari to review the Seventh Circuit’s view
of the matter, and the similar views taken in several earlier
cases upon which that court relied, see, e. g., Frances J.,
supra; McKay v. Boyd Constr. Co., 769 F. 2d 1084 (CA5 1985).
Those decisions conﬂict with the decisions of other Courts of
Appeals. See, e. g., Kruse v. Hawai‘i, 68 F. 3d 331 (CA9
1995); Henry v. Metropolitan Sewer Dist., 922 F. 2d 332 (CA6
1990); see also Silver v. Baggiano, 804 F. 2d 1211 (CA11