Document: 547 U.S. 633 (2006) KIRCHER et al. v. PUTNAM FUNDS TRUST No. 05-409. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 24, 2006. Decided June 15, *635 David C. Frederick argued the cause for petitioners. With him on briefs were Scott K. Attaway, Robert L. King, and Klint Bruno. Mark A. Perry respondents. brief Miguel Estrada, Amanda M. Rose, John D. Donovan, Jr., Thomas B. Smith, Steven Feirson, Stephen J. McConnell, Nory Miller, Christopher P. Hall, Todd Brody, Dale R. Harris, Phil Neal, Rabinowitz, W. Rotunno, Kenneth E. Rechtoris, James Carroll, S. Clancy, Charles F. Lee Garner, Y. Sperling.[*] JUSTICE SOUTER delivered opinion Court. Title 28 § 1447(d) limits appellate review a district court order remanding case from federal to state *636 court. The question here is whether an removed under Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act 1998 appealable, notwithstanding 1447(d). We hold it not. I Private Reform 1995 (Reform Act), 109 Stat. 737, targeted "perceived abuses class-action vehicle in litigation involving nationally traded securities," Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. Dabit, ante, at 81, put securities class actions. But Congress soon discovered that "[r]ather than face obstacles set their path by Act, plaintiffs representatives [were] bringing actions law, often court," 82. To block this bypass enacted (Act), 112 3227; see 81-82. has preclusion provision[1] removal provision:[2] provides private state-law "covered" *637 alleging untruth or manipulation connection with purchase sale security may not "be maintained any State Federal 3228 (codified 15 77p(b)),[3] authorizes "[a]ny covered action brought security, as forth subsection (b)," 77p(c)). "A `covered action' lawsuit which damages are sought behalf more 50 people. A security' one listed regulated national exchange." 83 (footnotes omitted). Petitioners eight groups investors holding mutual fund shares, who filed separate Illinois courts, each group seeking represent allegedly injured devaluation holdings respondents (mutual funds, investment advisors, insurance company) (hereinafter collectively funds).[4] complaints asserted only claims, such negligence breach fiduciary duty. funds notices stating, among other things, removable precluded Act. Once District Court, however, cases should be remanded lack subject-matter jurisdiction, orders Southern *638 ground lacked jurisdiction because did preclude investors' claims. Since said have been "holders" purchasers sellers, reasoned, claims satisfy "in sale" requirement Act's provision, 77p(b),[5] could therefore proceed decide otherwise met conditions preclusion. appeal remand orders, cases, 373 F.3d 847 (2004), Seventh Circuit issued addressing threshold its jurisdiction. Appeals acknowledged bars F.3d, 849 (citing Gravitt Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 430 723 (1977) (per curiam)), but decided had last word neither characterization decision jurisdictional nor correctness conclusion was required, 849. considered all securities, not, reason thought issue distinct belonged all. Id., 849-850. In view Appeals, if because, example, comprised too few make action, would improperly, unreviewable accordance held "properly removed" suits *639 substantive, "unaffected 1447(d)," id., 851, subject normal course. As it, once made substantive no case, time bow out, "adjudicatory competence" begin completed work: "Once does statute authorizes, there adjudicatory competence do more. That `lack jurisdiction' remand. Otherwise every suit, having merits, dismissed `for court's job finished." 850. This remand, concluded, want barred itself "practical sense," proposed reserves Judiciary exclusive authority decision. Ibid. Treating context immunized thus mean "a major [would] escape review," since open resolution subsequently consolidated funds' appeals decided, 403 478 (2005). granted certiorari resolve split Act,[6] 546 1085 (2006), we now vacate part Appeals. *640 II policy opposes "interruption merits prolonged questions removed," States Rice, 327 742, 751 (1946), nearly three years advocacy before us confirm congressional wisdom. For over century now, statutes accordingly limited power courts defendants court, 748-752; Thermtron Products, Hermansdorfer, 423 336, 346-348 (1976). current incarnation 1447(d), "order reviewable otherwise." [7] Thermtron, bar applies remands based grounds specified 1447(c), is, defect procedure U.S., 343-345; also Things Remembered, Petrarca, 516 124, 127-128 (1995). So, approved expressly Court's crowded docket, supra, 340-341, abstention Burford Sun Oil 319 315 (1943), Quackenbush Allstate Ins. 517 706, 710-712 (1996). relentlessly repeated "any 1447(c) [is forms review], might deemed erroneous court." U. S., 351; 343 ("If trial judge purports `improvidently without jurisdiction,' his *641 challenge appeals" (quoting (1970 ed.))). equally general statute, 1441, those provisions, 128, force statutory exception cover case.[8] Ostensibly, then, stands way reviewing present cases. ground, even permissible look beyond own label, unmistakably premised 77p(c) 77p(b); understanding "holder" 77p(b), subjectmatter jurisdiction.[9] indication exist some (complete diversity, example),[10] *642 necessarily wanting. And "[w]here [grounds enumerated 1447(c)], unavailable matter how plain legal error ordering remand," Briscoe Bell, 432 404, 413-414, n. 13 (1977). course, overlook unappealable; relied instead like Kontrick Ryan, 540 443 Scarborough Principi, 541 401 observed rulings loosely called patently strict sense, Kontrick, supra; Scarborough, supra). saw case; understood (c), consequence subsequent dismissing (b), precluded, rested simply application law think, correct dictated finding Unlike read authorization depends, confined "set 77p(c), namely, untruth, manipulation, so on. quoted phrase immediately follows (c) language describing apparent function unless deception. legislative *643 history tends show just what understood. See Rep. 105-182, p. 8 (1998) (§ "provides described Subsection (b) shall pursuant provisions (b)"); H. 105-640, 16 (same).[11] argue broader emphasizing adjective introduces (c): "Any" action. 77p(c). suggestion persuasive stopped reading right there, stop there; little bites. And, noted, broadly point "as anyway subset purport counter objection argument our redundant providing "shall event subject. fact about redundancy, count side, reading, too: falling within broad category treated applied case. sum, reject straightforward reading: deal terms (b). restricted defined *644 motion claiming must seen posing issue. If entertain proper course dismiss. likewise touch can it. either event, said, comes exercised work done. determine further Shipp, 203 563, 573 (1906) (opinion Holmes, J.) (A "necessarily ha[s] [is] properly it"). done jurisdictional,[12] reached implementing it.[13] *645 III yet well taken serious one. *646 Circuit's treat rule nonjurisdictional motivated assumption gives so, applies, arguably immune review. effect contend when they say collaterally estop remand; word. discomfort acute recent disavows scope nothing decisions. defendant enlist preclusion, elect leave where plaintiff trust (an competent body, Missouri Pacific Co. Fitzgerald, 160 556, 583 (1896)) determination. first place presently significance Dabit ask dismissal *647 return Collateral estoppel revisitation issue,[14] given prevents appealing Standefer States, 447 10, 23 (1980) ("[C]ontemporary principles collateral . strongly militat[e] against giving [unreviewable judgment] preclusive effect" Restatement (Second) Judgments 68.1 (Tent. Draft 3, 1976))); 28(1) ("Although actually litigated determined valid final judgment, determination essential relitigation between parties [when t]he party whom obtained judgment initial action"). While cannot way, perfectly free reasoning, explained ago Co.: "[A]s applications arose Constitution, laws, treaties States," finality accorded appropriate character "if claimant" "open revision ., irrespective ruling [federal court] regard removal." 583. Nor things differently remand's basis coincides entirely question; forum designation conclusive. Here, doubt will duly apply Dabit's holder embraced *648 (b),[15] claim Franchise Tax Bd. Cal. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust Cal., 463 1, 12, 12 (1983) pre-emption, ultimately reviewed Court" Fidelity Fed. Sav. Loan Assn. De la Cuesta, 458 141 (1982))). IV exempt nonappealability. instructions dismiss It ordered. SCALIA, concurring judgment. join Parts I, III, opinion; Part reasons below. ordered these know so: "Because lacks REMANDS Madison County, Court." App. Pet. Cert. 27a; 30a, 40a, 46a, 51a, 57a, 64a. Even decisions incorrect, *649 them See, e. g., correctly concludes overstepped authority. disagree reasoning II, holds Appeals' recharacterization (as believe) recharacterizationbeing form reviewis categorically forbidden. rejected description believed loose use term "jurisdiction." 847, 849-850 (2004). What did, (not appellate-review 1447(d)) after deciding petitioners' precluded. Such seems me flatly inconsistent Under section, (emphasis added). exactly involved looking behind true basis: characterization, decide, here, wrong. held, makes outcome "[i]f appeal, mandamus, (1976) ed.); emphasis Whether wrongeven badly mistaken misunderstood ordersit *650 purported review.[*] Review sort engaged threatens defeat purpose recognized "to prevent delay protracted issues." 351. created easily asking characterized correct (noting "prohibits [based jurisdiction] not"). date back early 2004; two later, still end stated order. Instead, "the jurisdiction." Ante, 642 declare views them. Either exercise NOTES [*] Briefs amici curiae urging affirmance Chamber Commerce America Rothfeld, Robin Conrad, Amar Sarwal; Industry Association Carter G. Phillips Richard Bernstein; Washington Legal Foundation Reece Bader, Meyers, Michael Tu, Daniel Popeo. Brian Wolfman Arthur Miller Law Professors curiae. [1] "No upon common subdivision thereof alleging "(1) untrue statement omission material security; "(2) used employed manipulative deceptive device contrivance security." 77p(b)). provision preemption provision; displace nonactionable through 87 ("The deny individual plaintiff, indeed fewer plaintiffs, enforce exist"). [2] "Any pending, section." [3] amends substantially identical ways," 82, 6, both 1933, 48 74, Exchange 1934, 881. sake simplicity, exclusively amendments ease reference same. [4] facilitated practice "market timing," whereby traders shares exploit discrepancies stock prices calculate shares' value day, stocks trading interim. Brief 6. market timing harmful long-term holders negligently recklessly failed adopt procedures protect investments. [5] discussed infra, 88-89. [6] Compare (CA7 2004) (case below) Spielman Inc., 332 116 (CA2 2003); Abada Schwab 300 1112 (CA9 2002); Williams AFC Enterprises, 389 1185 (CA11 2004). specifically excepts certain civil rights bar; cf. 1443. [8] "Absent clear command contrary, assume aware universality th[e] denying creates new removal," 128 (internal quotation marks omitted), has, wished, inapplicable particular orders. 1447(d); 1441a(l)(3)(C); 1819(b)(2)(C); 25 487(d); 7, supra. There "clear command" silence tells reviewability [9] take pass SCALIA'S position post, 650 judgment); result same near far. [10] These raise insufficient amount-in-controversy 1332; instances diversity named 1332's $75,000 threshold. Parthasarthy T. Rowe Price Int'l Funds, 03-CV-0673-DRH (SD Ill., Jan. 30, 2004), 34a-37a; Spurgeon Life 04-CV-0355-MJR 59a-60a. [11] Like "key [Act] actions' removable." 83, 7 3230). sketched strokes then us. Now speak cautiously. [12] 77p confers greater necessary render decision, analogizing officer 1442(a). colorable goes, keep adjudication, concluding precluded; discretion hence reviewable. flawed reasons. indicate development; wrong, making ruling. analogy sound. Section 1442(a) "well-pleaded complaint" rule, (absent diversity) remove plaintiff's complaint establishes `arises under' law." 10 deleted). allows "suits officers [to] despite nonfederal cast complaint," Jefferson County Acker, 527 423, 431 (1999), reflects "federal officers, Government itself, require protection forum," Willingham Morgan, 395 402, 407 (1969). An officer's defense need assure adjudicate 431. assert well, different. avails contemplation termination proceedings altogether, merely room limbo preclusion; "may [not] maintained," longer business being involved, moor expressed 1442(a), tried court; whatsoever that, apart vexing actions, intended add dockets, interest spending akin adjudicating officers. [13] suggest, alternative, Waco Guaranty 293 140 (1934). Without passing continued vitality light note distinguishable. Waco, invocation 141, thereafter "entered single decree embodying orders," 142. order, cross-complaint party. another, concluded citizenship dismissal. lie, preceded conclusive parties. 143. noted "reversal [of dismissal] affect least, erroneous, remit entire controversy, [previously party] party, proceedings." 143-144. appealed order; falls 1447(d)'s "[a]n case" Moreover, explain reconcile Waco's acknowledgment "cannot [be] affect[ed]" reversal disaggregated could, stands, [14] Modern usage calls descriptive term, "issue preclusion," "collateral estoppel." backsliders out pity tired reader; "preclusion" fiat enough opinion. [15] dispute 77p(b) prerequisites, particularly allegation fraud; charging fraud mismanagement. Because binding future consideration recharacterize forever insulated underlying remains resolved (unreviewable)

Category: 8