152 U.S. 454
The State of Tennessee filed three bills in equity against banking corporations including the Union & Planters’ Bank.1 These actions concerned taxes assessed on the capital stock of the banks under a general statute of Tennessee.2 The banks held charters that they viewed as granting exemptions from the taxes.3
In the first and second bills the complaints included language noting that the defendant banks would contend the Tennessee tax statute was void because it contravened the Constitution of the United States.4 The third bill contained no reference whatsoever to the Constitution or laws of the United States.5
Two of the suits were commenced originally in the Circuit Court of the United States.6 The third suit was brought in a court of the State of Tennessee and was removed to the federal circuit court upon petition of the defendant bank.7 After the cases reached the Circuit Court that tribunal entered decrees disposing of the bills.8
The records in all three cases showed that the plaintiffs asserted rights exclusively under the law of Tennessee.9 Any questions concerning the United States Constitution arose only from positions taken or expected to be taken by the defendant banks.10
Whether the three suits filed by the State of Tennessee against the banks qualify as cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States so as to support original or removal jurisdiction in the Circuit Court under the acts of March 3, 1887, and August 13, 1888?11
Under the acts of 1887 and 1888 the Circuit Courts of the United States have original jurisdiction only when the plaintiff's declaration or bill shows that the plaintiff asserts a right under the Constitution or laws of the United States.12 Removal jurisdiction exists only for suits that could have been brought originally by the plaintiff under the first section.13
No. The State of Tennessee filed three bills in equity against banking corporations including the Union & Planters’ Bank concerning taxes assessed on capital stock under a general statute of Tennessee where the banks held charters viewed as granting exemptions.14 In the first and second bills the complaints included language noting that the defendant banks would contend the Tennessee tax statute was void because it contravened the Constitution of the United States. The third bill contained no reference whatever to the Constitution or laws of the United States.15
Two suits began in the Circuit Court of the United States and the third began in state court before removal by the defendant bank.16 The records in all three cases showed that the plaintiffs asserted rights exclusively under the law of Tennessee with any constitutional questions arising only from positions taken or expected to be taken by the defendant banks.17 These facts establish that no federal right appears on the face of the plaintiffs' pleadings as required for jurisdiction under the 1887 and 1888 acts.18
The three suits do not qualify as cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States for purposes of original or removal jurisdiction in the Circuit Court.19
Whether a complaint that merely anticipates a federal constitutional defense by the defendant makes the suit one arising under federal law for jurisdictional purposes?20
No. In the first and second bills the complaints included language noting that the defendant banks would contend the Tennessee tax statute was void because it contravened the Constitution of the United States.23 The settled law of the court establishes that such an anticipation of a federal defense by the adverse party does not convert the suit into one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.24 The plaintiffs asserted rights exclusively under Tennessee law and the records confirm that any federal questions arose solely from expected defendant positions rather than from the plaintiffs' statements of their own claims.25
A complaint that merely anticipates a federal constitutional defense by the defendant does not make the suit one arising under federal law for jurisdictional purposes.26
Whether a suit commenced in state court may be removed to federal court when the plaintiff asserts only rights under state law and any federal question appears solely in the defendant's answer or petition for removal?27
Removal under the acts of 1887 and 1888 is limited to suits of which the Circuit Courts are given original jurisdiction by the preceding section.28 A defendant may not remove a suit when the plaintiff asserts only state-law rights and any federal question appears solely in the defendant's answer or removal petition.29
No. The third suit was brought in a court of the State of Tennessee and removed upon petition of the defendant bank.30 The third bill contained no reference whatever to the Constitution or laws of the United States and the record showed that the plaintiff asserted rights exclusively under Tennessee law.31
Under the 1887 and 1888 acts the change in removal language limits jurisdiction on removal to suits that could have been brought originally by the plaintiff.32 No statement in the petition for removal can supply the want of a federal claim on the face of the plaintiff's bill.33
A suit commenced in state court may not be removed to federal court when the plaintiff asserts only rights under state law and any federal question appears solely in the defendant's answer or petition for removal.34
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Field
Justice Harlan agreed that the first and second cases lacked jurisdiction but dissented as to the third case.35 He maintained that under the act of 1887 a suit arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States by reason of the answer or defense may be removed by the defendant.36 This holds even if the plaintiff asserted only state-law rights.37
Harlan reasoned that the main purpose of the second section was to restrict removal to defendants and that denying removal when the defense rests entirely on the federal Constitution creates an unjustified discrimination against defendants.38 He concluded that the bank should have been permitted to remove the third suit because its defense was grounded on the contract clause of the Constitution.39