Document: 539 U.S. 1 BENEFICIAL NATIONAL BANK ET AL.v.ANDERSON AL. No. 02-306. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 30, 2003. Decided June 2, Respondents, who secured loans from petitioner national bank, filed a state-court suit against the bank and two other petitioners, seeking damages on theory, among others, that bank's interest rates violated "the common law usury doctrine" an Alabama statute. The complaint did not refer to any federal law. Petitioners removed case Federal District Court, asserting National Bank Act governs rate may charge, see 12 U. S. C. § 85, charged respondents complied with 86 provides exclusive remedies available charging excessive interest, respondents' action was therefore one "arising under" could be under 28 1441. denied motion remand state court, but certified question whether it had jurisdiction Eleventh Circuit. In reversing, latter court held "well-pleaded complaint" rule, removal is permitted unless expressly alleges claim, narrow exception known as complete pre-emption doctrine apply because there no evidence clear congressional intent permit §§ 85 86. Held: Respondents' cause arose only could, therefore, Pp. 6-11. (a) As general absent diversity jurisdiction, removable if does affirmatively allege claim. Potential defenses, including statute's pre-emptive effect, Franchise Tax Bd. Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 1, do provide basis removal. One rule occurs when statute completely pre-empts action. Where this has found such pre-emption, statutes at issue—the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, Avco Corp. Machinists, 390 557, Employee Retirement Income Security 1974, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. Taylor, 481 58—provided claim asserted also set forth procedures governing 6-8. (b) Because petitioners usury, Life, Avco, framework answering claims banks. Section sets substantive limits banks while prescribes borrowers are higher claims. If here violate limits, common-law or statutory would treat those usurious would, thus, defense. That defense justify Only Congress intended comparable provisions construed in Life. This long providing See, e. g., Farmers' Mechanics' Nat. Dearing, 91 29. recognized special nature federally chartered Uniform rules limiting their liability prescribing overcharges integral part banking system needed protection possible unfriendly legislation. same supports established interpretation gives requisite force jurisdiction. 9-11. 287 F. 3d 1038, reversed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion which REHNQUIST, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. SCALIA, dissenting opinion, THOMAS, joined, post, p. 11. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 2 Seth P. Waxman argued petitioners. With him briefs were Dennis G. Lyons, Howard N. Cayne, Mary Gabrielle Sprague, Brian Duffy, Christopher R. Lipsett, Russell J. Bruemmer, Paul Q. Wolfson, Alan Kaplinsky, Burt M. Rublin. 3 Matthew D. Roberts States amicus curiae urging reversal. brief Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney McCallum, Deputy Clement, Mark B. Stern, Julie L. Williams, Daniel Stipano, Robert Griffin, Douglas Jordan. 4 Clark respondents. Pantazis.* 5 JUSTICE STEVENS Court. 6 recover allegedly violation both actually arises We hold may. 7 * Respondents 26 individual taxpayers made pledges anticipated tax refunds secure short-term obtained Beneficial Bank, Act. brought arranged loans, compensatory punitive usurious. App. 18-30. Their 8 Middle Alabama. notice they Rev. Stat. 5197, amended, 85,1 provision lawfully provision, 5198, 86, interest,2 statute, 1441, applied. 31-35. proceed Appeals pursuant 1292(b). 9 A divided panel Circuit Anderson H&R Block, Inc., 1038 (2002). majority our generally "complete preemption "find 86." Id., 1048. holding conflicted Eighth decision, Krispin May Dept. Stores Co., 218 919 (2000), we granted certiorari. 537 1169 (2003). II 10 civil 1441(b). To determine law, examine "well pleaded" allegations ignore potential defenses: "[A] Constitution laws plaintiff's statement his own shows based upon Constitution. It enough plaintiff some asserts invalidated by States." Louisville & Nashville Mottley, 211 149, 152 (1908); Taylor Anderson, 234 74 (1914). Thus, relies preclusive effect prior judgment, Rivet Regions La., 522 470 (1998), (1983), will 11 has, however, created certain exceptions rule. For example, Price-Anderson contains unusual 42 2014(hh), courts over tort actions arising out nuclear accidents even assert state-law See El Paso Natural Gas Neztsosie, 526 473, 484-485 (1999). have 301 1947 (LMRA), 29 185, pre-empting authorizing sought relief 557 (1968). later explained resting unusually "powerful" 301: 13 "The held, 376 2d, 340, affirmed, S., 560, petitioner's `arose under' 301, thus although undoubtedly pleaded adequate contracts remedy necessary ground decision so powerful displace entirely `for between employer labor organization.' Any purely creature notwithstanding fact absence 301. stands proposition comes within scope necessarily `arises law." Bd., 23-24 (footnote omitted). 14 Similarly, 58 (1987), considered preemption" approach adopted supported causes improper processing benefit plan regulated 1974 (ERISA), 1001 et seq. reasons, proper though purported raise First, text 502(a), 1132, provided express plaintiffs' claims, its subsection, 502(f), used language similar thereby indicating should way. 65. Second, legislative history ERISA unambiguously described "as fashion section Labor-Management 1947." 65-66 (internal quotation marks emphasis 15 circumstances—when provides, supra, 6, wholly displaces through pre-emption.3 When action, terms reality then 1441(b), authorizes "arises court. categories cases4 where preemption—certain LMRA ERISA—the issue 1132 (setting ERISA); 185 (describing suits LMRA). III 16 Count IV "usury violations" claimed "charged . "Alabama Code 8-8-1, interest." 28. usury. Board dispositive case: Does banks? so, removable. not, arise 17 Sections serve distinct purposes. former charge. elements 2-year limitations If, removal, unquestionably Such defense, Caterpillar Inc. 482 386, 393 (1987). cases.5 18 series cases decided shortly after passed, endorsed approach. 29, 32-33 (1875), rejected borrower's attempt entire debt forfeited, authorized New York stating various "form regulations [a]ll parts [of which] harmony each cover subject," State bearing whatever case." observed "[i]n view can taken [§ 86], power supplement legislation conferred neither nor implication." 35. Evans Savannah, 251 108, 114 (1919), stated "federal defines what constitutes taking referring maximum rate." Barnet 98 555, 558 (1879) (The "statutes Ohio Indiana subject cannot affect case" "creates new right" "exclusive"); Haseltine Central Springfield, 183 132, 134 (1901) ("[T]he definition penalties affixed thereto must determined Banking State"). 19 addition Court's longstanding consistent construction banks, "possible legislation." Tiffany Mo., Wall. 409, 412 (1874). protected taxation Chief Justice Marshall characterized "power destroy," McCulloch Maryland, Wheat. 316, 431 (1819), these supersede remedial create exclusive, complainant, here, is, short, thing bank. Even makes mention laws. 20 judgment 21 ordered. Notes: Drew Days III, Beth Brinkmann, Galanter American Bankers Association al. amici Briefs affirmance Arizona Terry Goddard, Arizona, O'Grady, General, Joseph A. Kanefield, Dan Schweitzer, Attorneys respective follows: Gregg Renkes Alaska, Richard Blumenthal Connecticut, Thurbert E. Baker Georgia, Bennett Hawaii, Lisa Madigan Illinois, Thomas Miller Iowa, Curran, Jr., Mike Hatch Minnesota, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon Missouri, Peter Heed Hampshire, Patricia Madrid Mexico, Eliot Spitzer York, Jim Petro Ohio, Hardy Myers Oregon, Henry McMaster South Carolina, Larry Long Dakota, Greg Abbott Texas, Christine O. Gregoire Washington; AARP Deborah Zuckerman, Stacy Canan, Michael Schuster; Consumer California James Sturdevant. Title provides: "Rate discounts purchases "Any association take, receive, reserve, charge loan discount made, notes, bills exchange, evidences debt, allowed State, Territory, located, per centum excess ninety-day commercial paper reserve district whichever greater, more, except different limited organized laws, shall associations existing title 62 Revised Statutes. fixed District, exceeding centum, ninety day advance, reckoning days note, bill, run. amount branch located outside Columbia country, territory, dependency, province, dominion, insular possession, political subdivision located. And purchase, discount, sale bona fide bill payable another place than sale, more current exchange sight drafts receiving greater "Usurious interest; penalty taking; taking, receiving, reserving, title, knowingly done, deemed forfeiture carries it, been agreed paid thereon. paid, person whom legal representatives, back, twice same: Provided, commenced years time transaction occurred." Of course, use supplemental C.§ 1367(a), subject-matter hear posessory land Indian tribes uniquely "nature source possessory rights tribes."Oneida Nation Y. County Oneida, 414 661, 667 (1974). turned historical relationship Government, assist present analysis. inquiry focuses rather removable, sections passed 1864, passage irrelevant, contrary assertions 22 THOMAS joins, dissenting. 23 Today's takes all claims—even explicitly law—are "aris[ing] purposes jurisdictional statutes. Ante page. finds scant support precedents Congress. I respectfully dissent. 24 Unless otherwise, exercise "of original jurisdiction." 1441(a). case, invoked predicate courts' "all Constitution, treaties 1331. 25 so-called question" governed well-pleaded-complaint exists presented face properly complaint." 392 "is presented" invokes relief. suffice facts alleged [well-pleaded-complaint] master claim; he she avoid reliance Ibid. Fair Kohler Die Specialty 228 22, (1913) ("Of course party brings decide rely upon"). Nor "Jurisdiction sustained theory advanced." Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Thompson, 478 804, 809, n. (1986). Under "a presents deprives defendant raise,. sufficient defeat claim." (1983). critical importance rejection federal-question applies equal pre-emption. "By unimpeachable authority, act prohibited thereby." Gully First Meridian, 299 109, 116 (1936). ." Caterpillar, 393. sure, requires dismiss particular matter, grounds 27 upholding not-withstanding complaint. (1968), enforce no-strike clause collective-bargaining agreement. concededly advance 185. notwithstanding, treated contract 560. mustered conclusion wrenched context Textile Workers Lincoln Mills Ala., 353 448, 457 (1957), "[a]ny applied [in case] absorbed independent private rights." begin with, unnecessary landmark Mills—that relations supplies them authority 456. More importantly, understood holding, quoted way relied Avco—that relating reads care, beyond doubt relevant merely confirms when, deciding employ overlap borrowed from, nevertheless sense law"—in become rules, becomes Other misguided Mills, failed clarify analytic unprecedented alchemy. neglected explain why pre-empted exempt strictures how plausibly said "arise Our subsequent struggled prop up Avco's puzzling holding: 30 Avco] 31 repeatedly explanation Avco. ante, 7, 394; 58, 64 all. nothing account accomplishes, justification (unless ipse dixit count justification) radical departure demands Gully, 116. Neither excerpt above, fragment Board, explains nonviability (due pre-emption) magically transformed into 32 second prohibition existence sued insurer, alleging breach seeking, inter alia, reinstatement disability benefits insurance coverages. 61. Though complaint, 502 upheld 66-67. 33 reaching conclusion, broke ground; follows says commend logic reason. Instead, simply "clos[e] parallels," 65, dramatically summon none asserted. "No specific reference expected," said, 502(a); accordingly concluded "Congress clearly manifested make enforcement 502(a) court." 66. abrogation "[f]ederal ordinarily suit[, such] appear well-pleaded [nor it] authorize court."1 63. 34 noteworthy straightforward (though similarly unsupported) announced today's opinion—under (1) "[w]hen [a] action," 8, (2) "provide[s] asserted," ibid.—is nowhere either Taylor. contrary, analysis implicitly contradicts (by rendering inexplicable) Taylor's discussion (Avco, earlier, contradicted.) Had thought need pains emphasize parallels" 502(a)(1)(B) pored show expected like LMRA. (citing H. Conf. Rep. 93-1280, 327 (1974); 120 Cong. Rec. 29933 (1974) (remarks Sen. Williams); id., 29942 Javits)). rested noting "unique ERISA," Indeed, spared itself trouble adding adjective "unique. " While something unique about whose closely patterned (which removal), Displacement alone, believed, sufficed establish 35 best precedential perspective, today variations appeared purest dicta. 470, 476 (1998) ("[O]nce area pre-empted, purportedly considered, inception, law" omitted)); ("[I]f (some internal omitted)). Dicta value, Bancorp Mortgage Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 18, (1994), contradict, holdings 36 difficulty moreover, flimsiness roots. noted already, squared bedrock principles ignored: Either principle setting action—indeed, action—does produce supporting 391, id.,at Relatedly, represents sharp break tradition respect autonomy courts. Healy Ratta, 292 263, 270 (1934), "[d]ue regard rightful independence governments, actuate courts, scrupulously confine precise defined." Shamrock Oil Sheets, 313 100, 108 (1941), insisted "strict construction" statutes.2 ignores venerable effectuates significant shift decisional 37 effort shift, "[b]ecause [12 C.] bank." Ante, But mere invalid character question, deprive question. response presentation nonexistent dismissal, "federalize-and-remove" dance opinion. correct obliterates state-created right transmogrified right. Congress's creating eliminating suggests expansion wrest questions 38 seek end run around insisting that, determining exists, required "`look pleadings.'" Brief (quoting Indianapolis Chase 314 63, 69 (1941)). They point out: 39 line disallow[s] manipulations plaintiffs designed misaligning interests parties, naming parties (whether defendants) real controversy, misstating citizenship defendants), controversy." 17-18. 40 insist "manipulative" complaints cases, "[r]espondents' disingenuously pleaded, `well pleaded' respect, purports exist." 16. Accordingly, argument continues, just seeks hide true too cloaks garb. 41 involving probably distinguishable crucial difference between, hand, "looking pleadings" factual assertion true, and, doing order proceeded "correct" theory. assuming analogy apt, derive case. proceeds faulty premise looks behind pleadings discovers have, fact, begs question—that assumes answer very presented. whenever one. discussed precedent conclusion; support, best, viable determined—invariably determined, Taylor—on prevail. There well good reasons favor urge adopts today. brief: 43 "Absent legitimate options—to recharacterize federal-law altogether. truly recovery prefer first option, propriety crystal clear. third possibility, err allow exclusive. avoids error." Amicus Curiae 44 True enough, inadequate render rational Inadequate rationality, reason fear error accompanied creation unaccompanied action—or, States' concern eliminate entirely. judicial Congress, risk matter unbearable divesting matter. until receive instruction preempted Act—in contrast almost pre-emption— lack "avoi[d] errors," permitting 45 46 succeeded giving theoretical foundation provided. Regrettably, without foundation. say, (Avco) modeled (Taylor) questions. Since believe inexplicable broad one, lesser evil, adhere stare decisis affirm, explanation, force" (quite illogically) suspends normal LMRA, removed, left it. From say thatTaylor wrongly decided. Having informed triggered Congress' insert "closely viewed be, "specific rule." S.,at 65-66. words, rests sort incorporation itself, continues rest nothing. traditional role played interpreting enforcing doctrinal manifestations. indulge, "presumption concurrent [state federal] jurisdiction," rebutted "by explicit directive, unmistakable implication history, incompatibility interests."Gulf Offshore Mobil Corp., 453 (1981).

Category: 8