Amendment Can Cut the Federal Jurisdictional Leash

The U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split in January over whether federal courts retain federal-question subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case even after plaintiff amends the complaint to eliminate all federal claims. In Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger No. 23-677, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 365, *1 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025), the Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit’s holding that supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims vanishes along with federal-question jurisdiction when a complaint is amended to remove the federal-question claims—regardless of whether the case is originally filed in or is removed to federal court. That ruling stands against the well-engrained concept in other circuits that the existence of subject matter jurisdiction is determined at the time of removal, held by the First, Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits. Notably, the Court did make clear that the time-of-removal rule for jurisdictional analysis does still apply to “the facts on the ground,” if not the claims included in an amended complaint. By way of example, a plaintiff cannot destroy federal jurisdiction even after Royal Canin, by amending to lower the alleged amount-in-controversy (i.e., the value of the claim) below the statutory threshold.

While Royal Canin U.S.A. Inc.’s counsel conceded that supplemental jurisdiction would disappear when the federal claims were withdrawn in a case originally filed in federal court by plaintiff, they argued the circumstances were different in cases removed by a defendant. The Court disagreed, citing to Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007), which held that supplemental jurisdiction does not survive after an amended complaint drops federal-question claims in a case originally filed in federal court. The Court pointed out that 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which provides for supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims, does not differentiate between original and removed cases. In short, if Congress had intended supplemental jurisdiction to be treated differently in removed cases rather than those filed in federal court, it would have made that explicit in the statute. The Court similarly dismissed Royal Canin’s citations to footnotes and dicta from other cases (including Rockwell), admonishing that “drive-by jurisdictional rulings—asserting or denying jurisdiction without elaboration, or analysis of whether anything turn[ed] on the ruling—should be accorded no precedential effect.”

Resolving the circuit split, Royal Canin makes clear that the plaintiff, as the master of the complaint, is ultimately in control of whether a case involving both federal and state claims can remain in federal court. If plaintiffs are willing to drop their federal-question claims in a case in which diversity jurisdiction does not exist, then the amendment will supersede the original complaint, destroy supplemental jurisdiction, and the plaintiff will be free to move for remand to state court to litigate the remaining claims.

From a practical perspective, Royal Canin raises a number of considerations for counsel involved in federal-question cases:

• Defendants can no longer rest on the assurance that a case removed under federal-question grounds will remain in federal court regardless of any amendments by plaintiff as has been the rule in multiple circuits to this point.
• Defendants who have previously removed or are considering removing cases to federal courts within the First, Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits where this decision upended the prior holdings of those circuits, need to be particularly mindful of the risk of remand-by-amendment now.
  • It remains to be seen whether this rule may be retroactively applied in removed federal-question cases pending before the Royal Canin ruling, but there is nothing in the decision ruling out retroactive application.
• Litigators opposing remand would be well served to analyze all possible bases for federal-question jurisdiction in order to identify any potential federal jurisdictional hooks that remain after the amendment at issue.
  • Counsel should carefully assess whether a plaintiff's amendment seeks to elevate form over substance, purporting to excise or rename the form of a federal claim while preserving it in substance and in relief requested.
  • Also consider requesting a deadline for amendment in scheduling orders in removed cases, to have a point of certainty for the existence of jurisdiction.
• By that same token, Royal Canin also provides plaintiffs’ counsel with a clear path to return to state court after their case has been removed—if they are willing to make the gambit of withdrawing any federal claims that provided a basis for removal.