ÿWPCM ¹çþ*Üé;[Ó¢£YɢÑ6Í­ÕùàR+ð&…]zlUO¿[Icü]}5;ð\fűâÀ· Sæë”‡$<­¥gâõð ìãéÓ=ÚΓœ[®óúç:“®Rܨ¬É~—ÖcÞW8/¾ÉW&-"cøïì±°¥îq™šÎDFœÌGŸÑ!ü½NåѼœKgžNGjšCôŸõ¯RÙØâ ÿúÏ8ÓN{O>Îß'Íx€In›®9à„êyxƒÙÜü¿ ’ï[i_+¶gµa\^™hãcÈ1NcoÈ&çi yÓÛç©9¸ÞÞ>áT~åZy"Ûè8YÎLì â OV·U¢êòëÉW‘PH7hn› êšyç{"ùöHZòD‰ÖO7‹iT†¦cˆjZÆ}!r¸Wm¾É}_%Á‹ ô©ž;<øãé‘öìsgBõw“}¡R·W"Ro|9™¿pÑ-5ZÚ1†ÂX¿Â¦=Ûö±¾ÕHJÅ5}Cóµ n‹È ¹"º;”A%s!ÔOôVtúEî›>$çòpßY¸¤[Çä@=ãÙòLÝÅkNÇÀ#yüOƒ)9Ïhä®ðê餘¾`1ó-B0dH#ÁðU,N± %ÿ 0(^ -U:9ws4w‹š mœb³M·b» 0³¿ 0Dr ]¶ 1‡ 1uš U@O 0 cm 1‡ÐW 1‡Z 1‡á 1‡hsï 1‡b 1‡é 1‡p 0F÷ 0B= 1‡ 1‡ 1‡ 1‡M› 0<Ÿ(ÛMMM M 72NEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"Gbi(q,™™™™™Å4ã"9˜0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ùŽ÷,L 'Ͼ¦ `"CG Times 12ptz’¸,˃ðØm‚3|x(ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ù ù(c(2Þ2$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÒà°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ôÙWòXXÔà 8 àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó SÝ ƒÞ2$ÝÓ  ÓÒà°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ôÙWòXXÔà 8 àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€This€document,€although€designated€by€Counsel€for€RespondentÐ `  Ðpursuant€to€S.Ct.€R.€26.2,€was€nevertheless€excluded€from€the€second€printingÐ ) É Ðof€the€Joint€Appendix€by€the€Petitioners€on€the€grounds€that€it€was€notÐ ò ’ Ðproperly€part€of€the€record€below.€€Respondent€respectfully€disagrees€withÐ » [ Ðthis€conclusion,€and€observes€that€the€document€was€included€(withoutÐ „ $ Ðobjection)€in€the€Excerpts€of€Record€filed€in€the€court€of€appeals.€€It€isÐ M í Ðreprinted€in€the€Appendix€as€it€appeared€in€the€first€printing€of€the€JointÐ ¶ ÐAppendix.€€See,€infra,€Resp.€Br.€App.€42a„47a.€€(нCEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(ÀÊO Z‹(Times New Roman  Ý ƒÞ2$ÝÓ  ÓÒà°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ôÙWòXXÔà 8 àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€It€was,€of€course,€in€òòÔ_ÔMarburyÔ_Ô€v.€Madisonóó,€5€U.S.€(1€Cranch)€137Ð `  Ð(1803),€that€the€Court€found€section€13€of€the€First€Judiciary€Act,€1€Stat.€73,Ð ) É Ð81,€to€be€unconstitutional€to€the€extent€that€it€purported€to€grant€the€SupremeÐ ò ’ ÐCourt€original€jurisdiction€over€mandamus€proceedings.(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(š½CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. ùÝ ƒÞ2$ÝÓ  ÓÒà°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ôÙWòXXÔà 8 àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Counsel€acknowledges€the€assistance€of€Anthony€M.€Balloon,Ð `  ÐChristopher€Ô_ÔBlyÔ_Ô,€Anne€M.€Ô_ÔHerronÔ_Ô,€Rachel€D.€King,€John€M.€Ô_ÔNadingÔ_Ô,€andÐ ) É ÐPaula€G.€Ô_ÔShakeltonÔ_Ô€in€the€preparation€of€this€Brief.€(ª½CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(º½CEKQW]cioAutoList4A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(ʽCEKQW]cioAutoList5A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. iÝ ƒÞ2$ÝÓ  ÓÒà°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ôÙWòXXÔà 8 àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€For€example,€legislation€is€currently€before€Congress€that€wouldÐ `  Ðallow€Ô_ÔaÔ_Ô€broader€range€of€class€actions€to€be€removed€to€federal€court.€€SeeÐ ) É ÐH.R.€2341,€107th€Cong.,€ðð€5€(2002).€€By€no€means,€though,€does€this€proposedÐ ò ’  Ðlegislation€go€as€far€as€Petitionersðð€submissions€here€concerning€the€use€ofÐ "  Ðthe€All€Writs€Act€or€ancillary€jurisdiction.(Ú½CEKQW]cioAutoList6A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(ê½CEKQW]cioAutoList7A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(ú½CEKQW]cioAutoList8A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.6†|ÿÿ4heading 2Ñ  ÑÓ „ ÓÓ  ÓÓ2(` ` Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!2ÓÓ ¨ý ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!5ÓÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÔ‡XXXÔ<ÿÿ:footnote refòòóó(µhCEKQW]cioAutoList91.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(Õ£EGMSY_ekqAutoList101.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(:ùEGMSY_ekqAutoList11A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(JùEGMSY_ekqAutoList12A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.<ÿÿ:Default Parai) Ñ ` ÑÑ ` Ñ( ù)QUESTIONS PRESENTEDLIST OF PARTIES BELOWOPINIONS BELOWSTATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONSTATUTE INVOLVEDSTATEMENTÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑe°ÑÑ  ÑÑ€ ÈÈ` ÑÌÒà°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ€<Ñà@2šàNo.€01„757€€€ˆÐ _ú ÐÌà@ÃÃ$šàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€THE€UNITED€STATESˆÐ Sî Ðà@/šà__________________ˆÐ Mè ÐÌà@ÙÙ)šàÔ_ÔSYNGENTAÔ_Ô€CROP€PROTECTION,€INC.,ˆÐ A Ü Ðà@ii)šàROBERT€Ô_ÔRABBÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔEDEEÔ_Ô€TEMPLET,€andˆÐ ; Ö Ðà@èè0šàKENNETH€A.€Ô_ÔDEVUNÔ_ԈР5 Ð Ðà@3šàPetitionersˆÐ / Ê  ÐÌà@UU7šàv.ˆÐ #¾  ÐÌà@SS1šàHURLEY€HENSON,ˆÐ ²  Ðà@××3šàRespondentˆÐ ¬  Ðà@/šà__________________ˆÐ  ¦ ÐÌà@,šàOn€Writ€of€Certiorari€toˆÐ ÿš Ðà@ii'šàthe€United€States€Court€of€AppealsˆÐ ù” Ðà@,šàfor€the€Eleventh€Circuit€ˆÐ óŽ Ðà@zz0šà________________ˆÐ íˆ ÐÌà@&&(šàò òRESPONDENTððS€BRIEF€à@@êê-šàON€THE€MERITSó óˆÐ á| Ðà@zz0šà________________ˆÐ Ûv ÐÌÌÌà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àòòDavid€J.€Ô_ÔBedermanÔ_ÔóóÐ Ã^ Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àòòCounsel€of€RecordóóÐ ½X Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àòòÔ_ÔGambrellÔ_Ô€HallÐ · R Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àAtlanta,€Georgia€30322„2770Ð €! Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ à(404)€727„6822Ð I"ä ÐÌà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àóóòòÔ_ÔHanyÔ_Ô€A.€Ô_ÔZohdyÔ_ÔóóÐ Û#v! Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àòòOf€Counselóó€Ð Õ$p " Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àòòSuite€JÐ Ï%j!# Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ à12090€South€Ô_ÔHarrellÔ_Ôððs€Ferry€RoadÐ ˜&3"$ Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àBaton€Rouge,€Louisiana€70816Ð a'ü"% Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ à(225)€293„5300Ð *(Å#& ÐóóÌà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àòòAttorneys€for€RespondentóóÐ  í)ˆ%( ÐÑ<Ñâ <âÑ` eÑÑ` °Ñâ <âÑ  ÑÑ8€víXXdúdÈ8ÑÙÙØØÑ€=ÑÌÓ  Óà@££*šàÔ €> Ôò òQUESTION€PRESENTED€FOR€REVIEWó óˆÐ  ú ÐÌDoes€the€All€Writs€Act,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1651(a),€grant€federal€districtÐ î Ðcourts€the€original€jurisdiction€required€under€28€U.S.C.€€ðð€1441€toÐ  è Ðpermit€removal€of€cases€that€would€otherwise€be€ineligible€forÐ â Ðremoval?€Ð þÜ ÐÌÐ  òÐ ÐÌà@ââ.šàÔ €? Ôò òLIST€OF€PARTIES€BELOWó óˆÐ  ú ÐÌà 8 àIn€addition€to€the€parties€reflected€in€the€caption,€alsoÐ î Ðplaintiffs€in€the€proceedings€below€were€Phillip€Ô_ÔHanoÔ_Ô,€Joe€Bowman,Ð  è ÐRandall€Ô_ÔSevarioÔ_Ô,€Sr.,€Betty€Ô_ÔHanoÔ_Ô,€David€Gray,€and€Randall€Ô_ÔSevarioÔ_Ô,Ð â ÐJr.,€as€well€as€a€specified€class€of€similarly„situated€parties.€€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_ÔÐ þÜ Ð97a.Ð  øÖ Ðà@……0šàò òTABLE€OF€CONTENTSó óˆÐ "  ÐÌà€Û"Û"IT$àPageˆÐ  ô ÐÌQuestion€Presented€for€Reviewà‚°#°#JT$.AàÕ2(QUESTIONS PRESENTED2Õ(i)Õ  ՈР è ÐList€of€Parties€Belowà‚Š#Š#IT$.  9àÕ6,LIST OF PARTIES BELOW6Õ(ii)Õ  ՈРâ ÐOpinions€Below€à‚ð#ð#LT$.ÒÒ3àÕ(OPINIONS BELOW(Õ1Õ  ՈРþÜ ÐStatement€of€Jurisdiction€à‚ð#ð#LT$.FF>àÕ>4STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION>Õ1Õ  ՈРøÖ ÐStatutory€Provisions€Involved€à‚ð#ð#LT$.¿¿Bà1ˆÐ òÐ ÐStatementà‚ð#ð#LT$.ÑÑ-à2ˆÐ ìÊ  ÐSummary€of€the€Argument€à‚ð#ð#LT$.ÑÑ<à8ˆÐ æÄ  ÐÌArgumentà‚Œ#Œ#KT$.ÅÅ,à11ˆÐ Ú¸  ÐÌI.€€€THE€ALL€WRITS€ACT€CAN€NEVER€PROVIDE€Ð ά  Ѐ€€€€THE€ORIGINAL€JURISDICTION€REQUIREDРȦ Ѐ€€€€FOR€REMOVAL€UNDER€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1441à‚Œ#Œ#KT$.±±Kà11ˆÐ   ÐÌ€€€A.à8 8 àRemoval€under€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1441(a)€is€permissibleÐ ¶” Ðonly€where€the€district€court€would€have€originalÐ °Ž Ðjurisdiction€in€the€caseà‚#Œ#Œ#KT$.±±A8ü!8ü!#à12ˆÐ ªˆ ÐÌ€€€B.à8 8 àThe€All€Writs€Act€(Ô_ÔAWAÔ_Ô)€does€not€provide€anÐ ž | Ðindependent€basis€of€original€jurisdiction.à‚#Œ#Œ#KT$.!!T8ü!8ü!#à14ˆÐ ˜!v ÐÌII.€€€THERE€CAN€BE€NO€OTHER€BASIS€FORÐ Œ#j Ѐ€€€€€€REMOVAL€UNDER€THE€ALL€WRITS€ACT.à‚Œ#Œ#KT$.q q Kà19ˆÐ †$d ÐÌ€€€A.à8 8 àRecourse€to€the€Ô_ÔAWAÔ_Ô€is€inappropriate€becauseÐ z&X ÐCongress€has€already€specified€the€mechanism€forÐ t'R Ðremovals.à‚#Œ#Œ#KT$.28ü!8ü!#à19ˆÐ n(L Ї€€€B.à8 8 àIn€this€case,€removal€under€the€Ô_ÔAWAÔ_Ô€isÐ "  Ðunnecessary€because€of€the€availability€ofÐ  ú Ðinjunctions€or€deference€to€state€courtÐ  ô Ðdeterminations€of€the€preclusive€effect€of€federalÐ î Ðjudgments.à‚#Œ#Œ#KT$.gg38ü!8ü!#à22ˆÐ  è ÐÌIII.€€ð ðANCILLARY€REMOVAL€JURISDICTION,ððÐ þÜ Ðà@))%šà€PREMISED€ON€THE€Ô_ÔAWAÔ_Ô€OR€A€PRIOR€FEDERALˆÐ øÖ Ѐ€€€€€€JUDGMENT,€IS€IMPERMISSIBLE.à‚Œ#Œ#KT$.Fà29ˆÐ òÐ ÐÌ€€€A.à8 8 àAncillary€jurisdiction€is€not€properly€before€thisÐ æÄ  ÐCourt.à‚#Œ#Œ#KT$.!!/8ü!8ü!#à29ˆÐ ྠ ÐÌ€€€B.à8 8 àThe€ancillary€jurisdiction€doctrine€does€not€provideÐ Ô²  Ða€basis€for€removal€jurisdiction.à‚#Œ#Œ#KT$.bbJ8ü!8ü!#à31ˆÐ ά  ÐÌConclusionà‚Œ#Œ#KT$.)).à38ˆÐ    Ðà@õõ.šàò òTABLE€OF€AUTHORITIESó óˆÐ "  ÐÌà@aa6šàò òCASESó óˆÐ  ô ÐÑ  ÑÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!°œX?ÓòòÌÔ‡ôÙWòXXÔAdams€v.€United€States€ex€rel.€McCannóó,Ð  è Ðà 8 à317€U.S.€269€(1942)à‚c!c!@T$.<à9,€20,€22,€23ˆÐ Ó± ÐòòÔ_ÔAhearnÔ_Ô€v.€Charter€Township€of€Bloomfieldóó,€Ð œz Ðà 8 à100€F.3d€451€(6th€Cir.€1996)à‚'#'#HT$.  Eà6,€33ˆÐ eC ÐòòAllied€Chem.€Corp.€v.€Ô_ÔDaiflonÔ_Ô,€Inc.óó,€449€U.S.€33€(1980)à‚¾#¾#KT$.ÛÛ[à22ˆÐ .  ÐòòAmalgamated€Clothing€Workers€of€Am.€v.€Ô_ÔRichmanÔ_Ô€Bros.€Co.óó,Ð ÷Õ  Ðà 8 à€348€U.S.€511€(1955)à‚¾#¾#KT$.77=à27ˆÐ Àž  ÐòòÔ_ÔAmchemÔ_Ô€Prods.,€Inc.€v.€Windsoróó,€521€U.S.€591€(1997)à‚¾#¾#KT$.PPWà35ˆÐ ‰g  ÐòòAtlantic€Coast€Line€R.R.€Co.€v.€Bhd.€of€Locomotive€Ô_ÔEngððrsÔ_Ôóó,Ð R0  Ðà 8 à398€U.S.€281€(1970)à‚Ü"Ü"GT$.<à25,€27ˆÐ ù  ÐòòBender€v.€Williamsport€Area€Sch.€Dist.óó,€475€U.S.€534€(1986)à‚¾#¾#KT$., , _à14ˆÐ ä  ÐòòBlonder„Tongue€Labs.,€Inc.€v.€Univ.€of€Ill.€Found.óó,€Ð ­‹  Ðà 8 à402€U.S.€313€(1971)à‚¾#¾#KT$.<à13ˆÐ vT  ÐòòCarlisle€v.€United€Statesóó,€517€U.S.€416€(1996)à‚Ü"Ü"GT$.~~Rà17,€21ˆÐ ? ÐòòCary€v.€Curtisóó,€44€U.S.€(3€How.)€236€(1845)Ô& [ Ôà‚¾#¾#KT$.ÐÐOà15ˆÐ æ ÐÓ  ÓòòCaterpillar€Inc.€v.€Williamsóó,€482€U.S.€386€(1987)à‚'#'#HT$.::Uà7,€12ˆÐ ѯ ÐòòÓ  ÓChick€Kam€Ô_ÔChooÔ_Ô€v.€Exxon€Corp.óó,€486€U.S.€140€(1988)Ô'[e!Ôà‚!!?T$.µµVà10,€24,€25,€27ˆÐ šx ÐòòCity€of€Chicago€v.€Ô_ÔIntððlÔ_Ô€Coll.€of€Surgeonsóó,€Ð cA Ðà 8 à522€U.S.€156€(1997)à‚'#'#HT$.<à8,€12ˆÐ ,  ÐòòClinton€v.€Goldsmithóó,€526€U.S.€529€(1999)à‚Ì Ì =T$.Mà7,€9,€17,€19,€21ˆÐ õÓ ÐòòEx€Parte€Republic€of€Peruóó,€318€U.S.€578€(1943)à‚¾#¾#KT$.îîRà22ˆÐ ¾œ ÐòòFederated€Ô_ÔDepððtÔ_Ô€Stores,€Inc.€v.€Ô_ÔMoitieÔ_Ôóó,€452€U.S.€394€(1981)à‚¾#¾#KT$.ùù_à13ˆÐ ‡e ÐòòFranchise€Tax€Bd.€of€California€v.€Constr.€Laborers€Ð P . Ðà 8 àVacation€Trust€for€S.€Cal.óó,€463€U.S.€1€(1983)à‚¾#¾#KT$.ŽŽVà12ˆÐ !÷ ÐÑ  ÑòòGold„Washing€&€Water€Co.€v.€Ô_ÔKeyesÔ_Ôóó,€96€U.S.€199€(1877)òòà‚¾#¾#KT$.WWYàóó21òòˆÐ â!À ÐÑ  ÑGreat€N.€Ry.€Co.€v.€Alexanderóó,€246€U.S.€276€(1918)à‚¾#¾#KT$.ÒÒVà21ˆÐ «"‰ ÐòòH.C.€Cook€Co.€v.€Beecheróó,€217€U.S.€497€(1910)à‚¾#¾#KT$.ËËQà31ˆÐ t#R ÐòòHarris€v.€Nelsonóó,€394€U.S.€286€(1969)òòà‚¾#¾#KT$.WWIàóó20òòˆÐ =$ ÐHeck€v.€Humphreyóó,€512€U.S.€477€(1994)à‚¾#¾#KT$.ààIà28ˆÐ %ä  ÐòòKline€v.€Burke€Constr.€Co.óó,€260€U.S.€226€(1922)à‚Ü"Ü"GT$.  Sà15,€36ˆÐ Ï%­! ÐòòÔ_ÔKokkonenÔ_Ô€v.€Guardian€Life€Ins.€Co.€of€Am.óó,€Ð ˜&v" Ðà 8 à511€U.S.€375€(1994)à‚P P <T$.<à10,€14,€30„32,€34ˆÐ a'?# ÐòòÔ_ÔLimbachÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔHoovenÔ_Ô€&€Allison€Co.óó,€466€U.S.€353€(1984)à‚¾#¾#KT$.óóXà28ˆÐ *($ ÐòòÔ_ÔLockertyÔ_Ô€v.€Phillipsóó,€319€U.S.€182€(1943)à‚¾#¾#KT$.77Mà15ˆÐ ó(Ñ% ÐòòLouisville€&€Nashville€R.R.€Co.€v.€Ô_ÔMottleyÔ_Ôóó,€211€U.S.€149€(1908)à‚¾#¾#KT$.&!&!cà13ˆÐ "  ÐòòÔ_ÔMarburyÔ_Ô€v.€Madisonóó,€5€U.S.€(1€Cranch)€137€(1803)à‚Ü"Ü"GT$.¹¹Tà16,€36ˆÐ ë É ÐòòMartin€v.€Hunterððs€Lesseeóó,€14€U.S.€(1€Wheat.)€304€(1816)à‚¾#¾#KT$.cc\à12ˆÐ ´ ’ ÐòòÔ_ÔMcClungÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔSillimanÔ_Ôóó,€19€U.S.€(6€Wheat.)€598€(1821)à‚¾#¾#KT$.Và16ˆÐ } [ ÐòòÔ_ÔMcIntireÔ_Ô€v.€Woodóó,€11€U.S.€(7€Cranch)€504€(1813)à‚'#'#HT$.  Sà9,€15ˆÐ F$ ÐòòÔ_ÔMcNuttÔ_Ô€v.€Gen.€Motors€Acceptance€Corp.óó,€Ð í Ðà 8 à298€U.S.€178€(1936)à‚¾#¾#KT$.<à14ˆÐ ض ÐòòMetro.€Life€Ins.€Co.€v.€Tayloróó,€481€U.S.€58€(1987)à‚¾#¾#KT$.JJVà12ˆÐ ¡ ÐòòNAACP,€Minneapolis€Branch€v.€Metro.€Councilóó,€Ð jH Ðà 8 à125€F.3d€1171€(8th€Cir.€1997)à‚¾#¾#KT$.kkFà26ˆÐ 3  ÐòòÔ_ÔNatððlÔ_Ô€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.€Tidewater€Transfer€Co.óó,€òòInc.óó,€Ð üÚ  Ðà 8 à337€U.S.€582€(1949)à‚¾#¾#KT$.<à36ˆÐ Å£  ÐòòOklahoma€Tax€Ô_ÔCommððnÔ_Ô€v.€Grahamóó,€489€U.S.€838€(1989)à‚'#'#HT$.33Và8,€13ˆÐ Žl  ÐòòOwen€Equip.€&€Erection€Co.óó€òòv.€Krogeróó,€Ð W5  Ðà 8 à437€U.S.€365€(1978)à‚ú!ú!CT$.<à12,€15,€34ˆÐ  þ  ÐòòÔ_ÔPalmoreÔ_Ô€v.€United€Statesóó,€411€U.S.€389€(1973)à‚¾#¾#KT$.——Qà15ˆÐ éÇ  ÐòòParsons€Steel,€Inc.óó€òòv.€First€Alabama€Bankóó,€Ð ²  Ðà 8 à474€U.S.€518€(1986)à‚ú!ú!CT$.<à10,€25,€27ˆÐ {Y  ÐòòPeacock€v.€Thomasóó,€516€U.S.€349€(1996)à‚ŸŸ8T$.Jà7,€10,€30,€31,€33,€34ˆÐ D" ÐòòPennsylvania€Bureau€of€Corr.€v.€United€States€Marshals€Serv.óó,€Ð  ë Ðà 8 à474€U.S.€34€(1985)à‚æ æ >T$.ÆÆ;à7,€9,€17,€19„22ˆÐ Ö´ ÐòòPrice€v.€Johnstonóó,€334€U.S.€266€(1948)à‚¾#¾#KT$.¡¡Jà20ˆÐ Ÿ} ÐòòRiggs€v.€Johnson€Countyóó,€73€U.S.€(6€Wall.)€166€(1867)à‚¾#¾#KT$.µµYà34ˆÐ hF ÐòòRivet€v.€Regions€Bank€of€Louisianaóó,€Ð 1 Ðà 8 à522€U.S.€470€(1998)à‚6 6 ;T$.<à10,€13,€15,€28,€33ˆÐ úØ ÐòòÔ_ÔRosenbaumÔ_Ô€v.€Baueróó,€120€U.S.€450€(1887)à‚Ü"Ü"GT$.wwKà17,€18ˆÐ á ÐòòÔ_ÔRuhrgasÔ_Ô€AG€v.€Marathon€Oil€Co.óó,€526€U.S.€574€(1999)à‚¾#¾#KT$.ÂÂWà29ˆÐ Œj ÐòòÔ#†XvíXòôÙW†#ÔÔ‡ôÙWòXXvíÔShamrock€Oil€&€Gas€Corp.€v.€Sheetsóó,€Ð U 3 Ðà 8 à313€U.S.€100€(1941)Ô#†XvíXòôÙW6#ÔÔ‡ôÙWòXXvíÔà‚¾#¾#KT$.<à21ˆÐ !ü ÐòòÔ_ÔTouceyÔ_Ô€v.€New€York€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€314€U.S.€118€(1941)à‚¾#¾#KT$.Yà27ˆÐ ç!Å ÐòòTurner€v.€Bank€of€N.€Am.óó,€4€U.S.€(4€Dall.)€8€(1799)à‚¾#¾#KT$.~~Wà14ˆÐ °"Ž ÐòòUnited€States€Alkali€Exp.€Ô_ÔAssððnÔ_Ô,€Inc.€v.€United€Statesóó,€Ð y#W Ðà 8 à325€U.S.€196€(1945)à‚Ü"Ü"GT$.<à20,€23ˆÐ B$   ÐòòUnited€States€v.€New€York€Tel.€Co.óó,€434€U.S.€159€(1977)à‚æ æ >T$.&&[à7,€9,€17,€19„23ˆÐ  %é! ÐòòÔ_ÔVendoÔ_Ô€Co.€v.€Ô_ÔLektroÔ_Ô„Vend€Corp.óó,€433€U.S.€623€(1977)à‚¾#¾#KT$.Wà24ˆÐ Ô%²" ÐòòWhitney€v.€Dickóó,€202€U.S.€132€(1906)à‚¾#¾#KT$.//Hà22ˆÐ &{# ÐòòWilly€v.€Coastal€Corp.óó,€503€U.S.€131€(1992)à‚¾#¾#KT$.èèOà14ˆÐ f'D$ ÐòòYee€v.€City€of€Escondidoóó,€503€U.S.€519€(1992)à‚¾#¾#KT$.rrQà30Ô#†XvíXòôÙW¢6#ԈР/( % ÐÑ  ÑÔ‡ôÙWòXXvíÔÐ ø(Ö& ÐÐ  "  Ðà@££,šàò òÔ#†XvíXòôÙW9;#ÔCONSTITUTION€ANDó ó€ò òSTATUTESÔ‡ôÙWòXXvíÔó óˆÐ "  ÐÌFederal€Constitutional€Materials:Ð å à ÐÔ#†XvíXòôÙWÙ;#ÔÑ  ÑÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒX?ÓÔ‡ôÙWòXXvíÔArt.€IIIÔ#†XvíXòôÙW¶<#Ôà‚ú!ú!CT$.££,àÔ‡ôÙWòXXvíÔ11,€15,€36Ô#†XvíXòôÙW=#ԈР® Œ ÐÌÔ‡ôÙWòXXvíÔFederal€Statutes:Ô#†XvíXòôÙW~=#ÔÐ qO ÐÔ‡ôÙWòXXvíÔJudiciary€Act€of€1789,€ch.€20,€1€Stat.€73€(1789)Ð : Ѐ€€section€13à‚¾#¾#KT$.÷÷1à16ˆÐ á Ѐ€€section€14à‚ö"ö"HT$.÷÷1à15„17ˆÐ ̪ ÐÑ  ÑAct€of€March€3,€1875,€ðð€2,€18€Stat.€470Ô#†XvíXòôÙWæ=#Ôà‚¾#¾#KT$.  KàÔ‡ôÙWòXXvíÔ17Ô#†XvíXòôÙWA?#ԈР•s  ÐÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒX?ÓÔ‡ôÙWòXXvíÔ9€U.S.C.€ðð€205à‚¾#¾#KT$.uu2à14ˆÐ ^<  Ð12€U.S.C.€ðð€632à‚Ü"Ü"GT$.ÀÀ3à13,€14ˆÐ '  Ð22€U.S.C.€ðð€286gà‚¾#¾#KT$.4à13ˆÐ ðÎ  Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€1254(1)à‚ $ $LT$.ºº7à1ˆÐ ¹—  Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€1332à‚ $ $LT$.  4à6ˆÐ ‚`  Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€1367à‚Ì Ì =T$.  4à2,€5,€29,€30,€33ˆÐ K)  Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€1404(a)à‚ $ $LT$.ºº7à6ˆÐ ò  Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€1441à‚ƒ"ƒ"GT$.  4àòòpassimóóˆÐ Ý»  Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€1446à‚'#'#HT$.  4à6,€14ˆÐ ¦„ Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€1447à‚¾#¾#KT$.  4à14ˆÐ oM Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€1448à‚¾#¾#KT$.  4à14ˆÐ 8 Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€1449à‚¾#¾#KT$.  4à14ˆÐ ß Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€1450à‚¾#¾#KT$.  4à14ˆÐ ʨ Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€1651(a)à‚ƒ"ƒ"GT$.ºº7àòòpassimóóˆÐ “q Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€1651€(1994)€(revisersðð€notes€of€1948)à‚¾#¾#KT$.++Uà20ˆÐ \: Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€1738à‚¾#¾#KT$.  4à25ˆÐ % Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€2283à‚c!c!@T$.  4à2,€10,€23,€24ˆÐ îÌ Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€2283€(revisersðð€notes)à‚¾#¾#KT$.ssFà27ˆÐ · • ÐÌÔ#†XvíXòôÙWÚ?#ÔÔ‡ôÙWòXXvíÔFederal€Rules:Ð I"' ÐÔ#†XvíXòôÙWyE#ÔÑ  ÑÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒX?ÓÔ‡ôÙWòXXvíÔFRCP€8(c)à‚¾#¾#KT$.xx-à13ˆÐ #ð ÐÑ  ÑS.€Ct.€R.€14Ô#†XvíXòôÙW)F#ÔÔ‡ôÙWòXXvíÔà‚¾#¾#KT$.¬¬0à30ˆÐ Û#¹ ÐS.€Ct.€R.€26à‚ $ $LT$.¬¬0à5ˆÐ ¤$‚  ÐÌÌÐ  ÿ&Ý# Ðà@  1šàò òÔ#†XvíXòôÙW¿F#ÔOTHER€MATERIALÔ‡ôÙWòXXvíÔó óˆÐ "  ÐÌÔ#†XvíXòôÙW¬G#ÔÑ  ÑÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒX?ÓÔ‡ôÙWòXXvíÔÔ_ÔLonnyÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔSheinkopfÔ_Ô€Hoffman,€òòRemoval€Jurisdiction€and€Ð å à Ѐ€€the€All€Writs€Actóó,€148€òòU.€Pa.€L.€Rev.€óó401€(1999)à‚TT7T$.;;Wà13,€15,€18,€26,€33,€34ˆÐ ® Œ ÐH.R.€2341,€107th€Cong.€ðð€5€(2002)à‚¾#¾#KT$.ggEà35ˆÐ wU ÐÑ  ÑHenry€Paul€Ô_ÔMonaghanÔ_Ô,€òòÔ_ÔAntisuitÔ_Ô€Injunctions€and€Preclusion€Ð @ Ѐ€€Against€Absent€Nonresident€Class€Membersóó,€Ð  ç Ѐ€€98€òòÔ_ÔColumÔ_Ô.€L.€Rev.óó€1148€(1998)à‚¾#¾#KT$.Dà17ˆÐ Ò° ÐJ.€Moore€&€G.€Pratt,€òòMooreððs€Federal€Practiceóó€(3d€ed.€1998)à‚¾#¾#KT$.!!_à17ˆÐ ›y ÐJoan€Steinman,€òòThe€Newest€Frontier€of€Judicial€Activism:€Ð dB  Ѐ€€Removal€under€the€All€Writs€Actóó,€Ð -   Ѐ€€80€òòÔ_ÔB.U.Ô_Ô€L.€Rev.óó€773€(2000)à‚!!?T$.ããAà14,€26,€27,€36ˆÐ öÔ  ÐCharles€Alan€Wright€&€Mary€Kay€Kane,€Ð ¿  Ѐ€òò€Federal€Practice€and€Procedure:€€Federal€Practice€Ð ˆf  Ѐ€€€Ô_ÔDeskbookÔ_Ôóó€(2002)à‚¾#¾#KT$.íí7à17ˆÐ Q/  ÐCharles€Alan€Wright,€Arthur€R.€Miller€&€Edward€H.€Cooper,€òòÐ ø  Ѐ€€Federal€Practice€and€€Procedureóó€€(2d€ed.€1996)Ô#†XvíXòôÙWSH#Ôà‚¾#¾#KT$.FFUàÔ‡ôÙWòXXvíÔ17Ô#†XvíXòôÙWkN#ԈРãÁ  ÐÌÐ  ¦„ ÐØ ØÙÙÑ€ =ÑÌà@&&(šàò òRESPONDENTððS€BRIEF€ON€THE€MERITSó óˆÐ  ú Ðà@¸¸,šà_________________________ˆÐ  ô ÐÌà@..1šàÔ €D Ôò òOPINIONS€BELOWó óˆÐ  è ÐÌà 8 àThe€opinion€and€judgment€of€the€U.S.€Court€of€Appeals€forÐ þÜ Ðthe€Eleventh€Circuit,€òòHenson€v.€Ô_ÔCibaÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔGeigyÔ_Ô€Corp.óó,€Nos.€99„6021Ð øÖ Ð&€99„6130€(11th€Cir.€Aug.€14,€2001),€is€reported€at€261€F.3dÐ òÐ Ð1065,€and€is€reprinted€at€Pet.€App.€1a;€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€13a.€€The€U.S.€DistrictÐ ìÊ  ÐCourtððs€Order€of€November€24,€1998,€is€unreported€but€isÐ æÄ  Ðreprinted€at€Pet.€App.€15a;€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€27a.Рྠ ÐÌà@°°,šàÔ €E Ôò òSTATEMENT€OF€JURISDICTIONó óˆÐ Ô²  ÐÌà 8 àPetitioners€have€been€granted€review€from€the€opinion€andРȦ Ðjudgment€of€the€U.S.€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Eleventh€Circuit€ofР  ÐAugust€14,€2001.€€This€Court€granted€the€Petition€for€Writ€ofÐ ¼š ÐCertiorari€on€February€19,€2002.€€The€Supreme€Court€hasÐ ¶” Ðjurisdiction€to€review€cases€from€the€courts€of€appeals€under€28Ð °Ž ÐU.S.C.€ðð€1254(1).òò€óóÐ ªˆ ÐÌà@££*šàÔ €F Ôò òSTATUTORY€PROVISIONS€INVOLVEDó óˆÐ ž | ÐÌÓ ÍLÓà 8 àThe€All€Writs€Act,€currently€codified€at€28€U.S.C.€ððÐ ’"p Ð1651(a),€provides€in€pertinent€part€that€ð ðThe€Supreme€Court€and€allÐ Œ#j Ðcourts€established€by€Act€of€Congress€may€issue€all€writs€necessaryÐ †$d Ðor€appropriate€in€aid€of€their€respective€jurisdictions€and€agreeableÐ €%^ Ðto€the€usages€and€principles€of€law.ððÐ z&X Ðà 8 àThe€removal€statute,€codified€in€relevant€part€at€28€U.S.C.Ð ¿' Ððð€1441,€provides€that€ð ðExcept€as€otherwise€expressly€provided€byÐ ¹(— ÐAct€of€Congress,€any€civil€action€brought€in€a€State€court€of€whichÐ "  Ðthe€district€courts€of€the€United€States€have€original€jurisdiction,€mayÐ  ú Ðbe€removed€by€the€defendant€or€the€defendants,€to€the€district€courtÐ  ô Ðof€the€United€States€for€the€district€and€division€embracing€the€placeÐ î Ðwhere€such€action€is€pending.ðð€€Id.€ðð€1441(a).€€In€addition,€ð ðAnyÐ  è Ðcivil€action€of€which€the€district€courts€have€original€jurisdictionÐ â Ðfounded€on€a€claim€or€right€arising€under€the€Constitution,€treaties€orÐ þÜ Ðlaws€of€the€United€States€shall€be€removable€without€regard€to€theÐ øÖ Ðcitizenship€or€residence€of€the€parties.ðð€€Id.€ðð€1441(b).Ð òÐ Ðà 8 à28€U.S.C.€ðð€2283,€known€as€the€Anti„Injunction€Act,Ð 7  Ðprovides€that€ð ðA€court€of€the€United€States€may€not€grant€anÐ 1  Ðinjunction€to€stay€proceedings€in€a€State€court€except€as€expresslyÐ +  Ðauthorized€by€Act€of€Congress,€or€where€necessary€in€aid€of€itsÐ %  Ðjurisdiction,€or€to€protect€or€effectuate€its€judgments.ððÐ ý  Ðà 8 àSupplemental€or€ancillary€jurisdiction€is€prescribed€by€28Ð dB ÐU.S.C.€ðð€1367,€which€provides€in€relevant€part€that€ð ðExcept€asÐ ^< Ðprovided€in€subsections€(b)€and€(c)€or€as€expressly€providedÐ X6 Ðotherwise€by€Federal€statute,€in€any€civil€action€of€which€the€districtÐ R0 Ðcourts€have€original€jurisdiction,€the€district€courts€shall€haveÐ L* Ðsupplemental€jurisdiction€over€all€other€claims€that€are€so€related€toÐ F$ Ðclaims€in€the€action€within€such€original€jurisdiction€that€they€formÐ @ Ðpart€of€the€same€case€or€controversy€under€Article€III€of€the€UnitedÐ :  ÐStates€Constitution.ðð€€Id.€ðð€1367(a).€€€€€€€Ð 4! ÐÌà@554šàÔ €G Ôò òSTATEMENTó óˆÐ ¾#œ ÐÌà 8 à1.€€The€Respondent,€Hurley€Henson,€is€the€lead€plaintiff€inÐ H&& Ða€class€action€(hereinafter,€the€ð ðòòHensonóó€actionðð)€arising€fromÐ B'  Ðexposure€to€Petitionersðð€pesticide€chemicals,€including€theÐ <( ÐÔ_ÔchlordimeformÔ_Ô„based€insecticide,€Ô_ÔGalecronÔ_Ô.€€The€exposures€tookÐ 6) Ðplace€at€Petitioner€Ô_ÔSyngentaÔ_Ô€Crop€Protection,€Inc.ððs€(previouslyÐ "  ÐÔ_ÔCibaÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔGeigyÔ_Ô€Corporation)€production€facility€at€St.€Gabriel,Ð  ú ÐLouisiana.€€Henson€filed€the€original€class€action€petition,€assertingÐ  ô Ðexclusively€state„law€tort€claims,€in€September€1993€in€the€18thÐ î ÐJudicial€District€Court€in€Iberville€Parish,€Louisiana.€€Subsequently,Ð  è ÐHenson€and€other€Louisiana€residents€employed€at€the€St.€GabrielÐ â Ðfacility€sought€intervention€and€became€members€of€a€class€actionÐ þÜ Ðlawsuit,€styled€òòPrice€v.€Ô_ÔCibaÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔGeigyÔ_Ôóó€(the€ð ðòòPriceóó€actionðð),€originallyÐ øÖ Ðfiled€in€the€state€circuit€court€of€Mobile€County,€Alabama,€and€thenÐ òÐ Ðproperly€removed€to€the€U.S.€District€Court€for€the€Southern€DistrictÐ ìÊ  Ðof€Alabama.€€The€òòHensonóó€action€remained€in€state€court;€it€wasÐ æÄ  Ðnever€removed€nor€consolidated€with€òòPriceóó.Рྠ Ðà 8 àThe€federal€district€court€in€theòò€Priceóó€action€certified€aÐ %  Ðnationwide€class€action€and€approved€a€Stipulation€of€Settlement,Ð ý  Ðconcluded€by€the€parties€on€August€26,€1994.€€See€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€32a.€€TheÐ ÷  ÐStipulation€defined€the€relevant€ð ðÔ_Ôclaim[sÔ_Ô]ðð€governed€by€theÐ ñ Ðsettlement,€and€indicated€that€the€settlement€only€extended€toÐ  ë Ðdamages€arising€from€exposure€to€Ô_ÔGalecronÔ_Ô.€€See€id.€(ðð€I(G)).€€NoÐ å Ðother€claims€were€settled.€€The€Stipulation€did€refer€to€the€òòHensonóóÐ ß Ðaction€as€a€ð ðrelated€case,ðð€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€36a€(ðð€AI(1)),€and€in€a€clauseÐ ûÙ Ðentitled€ð ðDismissal€of€Related€Case,ðð€provided€that€Ð õÓ Ðà8 8 àCLASS€COUNSEL€hereby€stipulates€that€theÐ :  ÐRELATED€CASE,€including€any€and€all€claimsÐ 4! Ð(including,€without€limitation€any€CLAIMS€definedÐ ."  Ðherein)€against€Ô_ÔCIBAÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔGEIGYÔ_Ô€CORPORATIONÐ (# Ðand€individual€defendants€.€.€.€shall€be€dismissed,Ð "$ Ðwith€prejudice,€as€of€the€APPROVAL€DATE,€andÐ %ú Ðthat€such€RELATED€CASE€shall€be€stayed€until€theÐ &ô ÐAPPROVAL€DATE.€.€.€.Ð'î8ü!8ü! ÐÔ_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€38a€(ðð€II(4)).€€Class€Counsel€for€the€plaintiffs€in€the€òòHensonóóÐ U(3 ÐÔ_Ôaction€subscribed€to€the€Stipulation€of€Settlement.€€Ð "  Ðà 8 àOn€January€30,€1995,€the€original€Stipulation€of€SettlementÐ g E Ðwas€amended.€€Paragraph€8€of€the€Amendment€made€clear€thatÐ a ? Ðð ðCLAIMS€of€spouses,€parents,€children€and€other€relatives€do€notÐ [9 Ðinclude€claims€by€such€persons€of€alleged€direct€exposure€toÐ U3 ÐGALECRONðð,€unless€such€person€is€an€EXPOSED€PERSON€asÐ O- Ðdefined€in€the€STIPULATION.ðð€€J.A.€53a€(ðð€8).€€The€federal€districtÐ I' Ðcourt,€on€March€31,€1995,€accepted€the€Stipulation€of€SettlementÐ C! Ðand€indicated€that€ð ðThe€Court€shall€retain€jurisdiction€to€determineÐ = Ðattorneysðð€fees€and€expenses,€and€with€respect€to€futureÐ 7  Ðperformance€of,€and€any€claims€relating€to€performance€of,€theÐ 1  ÐSettlement€agreement€and€judgment.ðð€€J.A.€93a€(ðð€6).€€€Ð +  Ðà 8 à2.€€Over€three€years€later,€on€June€5,€1998,€a€statusÐ pN  Ðconference€was€held€before€Judge€Marionneaux€of€the€LouisianaÐ jH  Ð18th€Judicial€District€Court€of€Iberville€Parish€regarding€the€òòHensonóóÐ dB Ðaction.€€At€that€meeting,€class€counsel€in€the€òòPriceóó€action€moved€forÐ ^< Ðdismissal€of€the€òòHensonóó€case,€as€per€the€Stipulation.€€Mr.€HanyÐ X6 ÐZohdy,€counsel€for€the€òòHensonóó€plaintiffs,€objected€to€dismissal€of€theÐ R0 Ðentirety€of€the€action,€based€on€his€interpretation€of€the€Stipulation€asÐ L* Ðamended.€€The€Judicial€District€Court€issued€a€Notice€of€a€Rule€toÐ F$ ÐShow€Cause€and€a€hearing€was€held€on€August€18,€1998,€at€whichÐ @ ÐMr.€Pendley€(class€counsel€in€òòPriceóó)€and€Mr.€Zohdy€attended,€but,Ð :  Ðinexplicably,€no€representative€of€the€defendants€did.€€At€the€ShowÐ 4! ÐCause€Hearing,€Pendley€and€Zohdy€represented€that€the€StipulationÐ ."  Ðof€Settlement€applied€only€to€Galecron€exposures€and,€in€any€event,Ð (# Ðdid€not€extend€to€family€members€of€those€exposed€to€otherÐ "$ Ðchemicals.€€J.A.€75a,€83a„85a.Ð %ú Ðà 8 àThe€state€court€dismissed€those€aspects€of€the€òòHensonóóÐ a&? Ðaction€ð ðas€to€the€Chlordimeform€or€Galecronðð€and€gave€Mr.€ZohdyÐ ['9 Ðthirty€days€to€amend€the€complaint€to€reflect€that€dismissal€and€Ô_ÔtoÐ U(3 Ðrestate€the€remaining€claims.€€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€86a.€€On€September€8,€1998,Ð "  ÐÔ_ÔZohdyÔ_Ô€filed€an€Amendment€to€the€Original€Class€Action€Petition.€Ð  ú ÐÔ_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€94a.€€In€€both€the€First€Amended€Petition€and€a€SecondÐ  ô ÐAmended€Petition,€lodged€and€served€on€October€10,€1998€(but€notÐ î Ðfiled€because€of€the€supervening€removal€and€stay׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×),€plaintiffs€madeÐ  è Ðclear€that€the€causes€of€action€arising€from€the€workersðð€directÐ â Ðexposure€to€Ô_ÔchlordimeformÔ_Ô€were€dismissed€pursuant€to€the€òòPriceóóÐ þÜ Ðsettlement,€and€that€they€were€seeking€relief€only€for€claims€notÐ øÖ Ðearlier€settled.€€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€95a€(First€Amended€Petition);€Res.€Br.€App.Ð òÐ Ð43a„47a€(Second€Amended€Petition).Ð ìÊ  Ðà 8 à3.€a.€€On€October€13,€1998,€in€response€to€the€FirstÐ 1  ÐAmended€Complaint,€the€defendants€in€the€òòHensonóó€action€removedÐ +  Ðthe€case€to€the€U.S.€District€Court€for€the€Middle€District€ofÐ %  ÐLouisiana.€€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€58a.€€As€already€noted,€the€òòHensonóó€complaintÐ ý  Ð(even€as€amended),€did€not€assert€a€federal€cause€of€action,€and,Ð ÷  Ðbecause€of€the€individual€defendants€sued,€there€was€no€diversity€ofÐ ñ Ðcitizenship€among€the€litigants.€€The€òòHensonóó€defendants€nonethelessÐ  ë Ðasserted€that€the€federal€district€court€had€original€jurisdiction€overÐ å Ðthe€action€under€the€All€Writs€Act,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1651,€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€60a„62aÐ ß Ð(ðððð€VII„XII)€or,€alternatively,€under€the€supplemental€jurisdictionÐ ûÙ Ðstatute,€id.€ðð€1367,€ð ðbecause€the€claims€in€this€action€are€so€relatedÐ õÓ Ðto€the€claims€in€the€Price€Class€Action€ððthat€they€form€part€of€theÐ ïÍ Ðsame€case€or€controversy€under€Article€III€of€the€United€StatesÐ é Ç ÐConstitutionðð.ðð€€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€63a€(ðð€XIII).€€Recognizing€also€that€the€removalÐ "  Ðwas€filed€more€than€a€year€after€the€filing€of€the€original€action,€inÐ  ú Ðcontravention€of€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1446(b),€defendants€asserted€that€theÐ  ô Ðrelevant€date€was€the€filing€of€the€Amended€Complaint.€€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€63a€(ððÐ î ÐXIV).Ð  è Ðà 8 àb.€€The€defendants,€immediately€after€removal€of€the€actionÐ O- Ðto€federal€court,€sought€and€received€a€transfer€to€the€SouthernÐ I' ÐDistrict€of€Alabama€under€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1404(a).€€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€65a.€€ThatÐ C! Ðcourt€proceeded€in€November€1998€to€dismiss€with€prejudice€theÐ = Ðentirety€of€the€òòHensonóó€action,€see€Pet.€App.€18a;€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€31a,€andÐ 7  Ðpursuant€to€its€continuing€jurisdiction€in€the€òòPriceóó€proceeding,€toÐ 1  Ðsanction€Attorney€Ô_ÔZohdyÔ_Ô€for€attempting€ð ðto€thwart€the€courtððsÐ +  Ðjurisdiction€by€filing€an€amended€complaint€in€òòHensonóó€in€which€theyÐ %  Ðput€forward€claims€which€they€say€do€not€fall€within€the€ambit€of€theÐ ý  ÐStipulation€of€Settlement.ðð€€Pet.€App.€16a;€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€28a.Ð ÷  Ðà 8 àc.€€Henson€appealed€to€the€U.S.€Court€of€Appeals€for€theÐ ^< ÐEleventh€Circuit,€which€(in€a€per€Ô_ÔcuriamÔ_Ô€opinion),€affirmed€theÐ X6 Ðattorney€sanctions€but€vacated€the€district€courtððs€assertion€ofÐ R0 Ðremoval€jurisdiction€over€the€òòHensonóó€action€and€ordered€that€theÐ L* Ðmatter€be€remanded€to€the€Louisiana€state€court.€€See€Pet.€App.Ð F$ Ð12a;€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€24a.€€First,€the€court€of€appeals€noted€that€Ô_ÔCibaÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔGeigyÔ_ÔððsÐ @ Ðremoval€was€untimely€under€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1446(b)€and€impermissibleÐ :  Ðunder€id.€ðððð€1332€and€1441(a)€because€of€the€presence€ofÐ 4! Ðdiversity„defeating€defendants.€€Pet.€App.€4a€&€n.2;€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€16a€&€n.2€Ð ."  ÐNext,€the€Eleventh€Circuit€ruled€Ð (# Ðà8 8 àð ðthere€is€no€other€possible€ground€of€federalÐ m$K Ðsubject-matter€jurisdiction.€€Ô_ÔCibaÔ_Ô-Ô_ÔGeigyÔ_Ôððs€removalÐ g%E Ðnotice€also€alleged€supplemental€jurisdiction,€byÐ a&? Ðvirtue€of€[the]€òòPriceóó€[litigation],€under€28€U.S.C.€ððÐ ['9 Ð1367.€€€But€ðð€1367€cannot€provide€the€ððoriginalÐ U(3 Ðjurisdictionðð€that€ðð€1441€demands€for€an€action€toÐ "  Ðbe€removable.€€òòÔ_ÔAhearnÔ_Ô€v.€Charter€Townshipóó,€100Ð  ú ÐF.3d€451,€456€(6th€Cir.€1996).€€Ô_ÔCibaÔ_Ô-Ô_ÔGeigyÔ_Ô€didÐ  ô Ðnot,€furthermore,€assert€ancillary€jurisdiction,€if€suchÐ î Ðjurisdiction€exists€independent€of€ðð€1367€(òòseeóóÐ  è ÐòòPeacock€v.€Thomasóó,€516€U.S.€349,€116€S.€Ct.Ð â Ð862€(1996)),€and€we€therefore€do€not€address€it€asÐ þÜ Ða€potential€basis.ðð€€Pet.€App.€7a€&€n.3;€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€19a€&Ð øÖ Ðn.3.€€ÐòÐ8ü!8ü! ÐThe€court€of€appeals€thus€proceeded€to€consider€the€defendantsððÐ 7  Ðreliance€on€the€All€Writs€Act,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1651(a),€as€the€basis€forÐ 1  Ðremoval.€€Ð +  Ðà 8 àThe€Eleventh€Circuit€observed€that€this€Court€hasÐ pN  Ðconsistently€reiterated€that€removal€under€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1441€isÐ jH  Ðpossible€only€where€a€case€ð ðoriginally€could€have€been€filed€inÐ dB Ðfederal€court.ðð€€Pet.€App.€10a;€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€22a€(citing€òòCaterpillar€Inc.€v.Ð ^< ÐWilliamsóó,€482€U.S.€386,€392€(1987)).€€Moreover,€the€All€WritsÐ X6 ÐActððs€grant€of€authority€ð ðnecessary€or€appropriate€in€aid€[of€federalÐ R0 Ðcourt]€jurisdiction[],ðð€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1651(a),€has€never€beenÐ L* Ðregarded€as€an€independent€basis€for€federal€subject„matterÐ F$ Ðjurisdiction.€€The€All€Writs€Act€thus€could€not,€by€itself,€supplyÐ @ Ðoriginal€jurisdiction€where€it€does€not€otherwise€exist.€€See€òòClintonÐ :  Ðv.€Goldsmithóó,€526€U.S.€529,€534„35€(1999);€òòPennsylvaniaÐ 4! ÐBureau€of€Corr.€v.€United€States€Marshals€Servóó.,€474€U.S.€34,Ð ."  Ð40€(1985).€€See€Pet.€App.€10a;€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€22aÐ (# Ðà 8 àThe€court€of€appeals€noted€that€its€conclusion€was€consistentÐ m$K Ðwith€the€history€and€purpose€of€the€All€Writs€Act.€€No€descriptionÐ g%E Ðof€the€Act€as€ð ðjurisdictional€caulk€.€.€.€Ô_Ôplug[gingÔ_Ô]€the€cracks€in€federalÐ a&? Ðjurisdiction,ðð€Pet.€App.€11a;€Ô_ÔJ.A.Ô_Ô€23a€(citing€òòUnited€States€v.€NewÐ ['9 ÐYork€Tel.€Co.óó,€434€U.S.€159,€172„73€(1977),€for€this€ð ðbroad€viewððÐ U(3 ÐÔ_Ôof€the€Act),€would€sanction€what€is€otherwise€an€impermissibly€wideÐ "  Ðexpansion€of€federal€jurisdiction€at€the€expense€of€state€courts.€€AsÐ  ú Ðthe€Eleventh€Circuit€observed,€such€a€ð ðre„equilibrating€[of€the]Ð  ô Ðfederal„state€balanceðð€is€Congressððs€to€make.€€Id.Ð î Ðà 8 àd.€€Both€sides€sought€review€here.€€Respondent€joined€inÐ U3 Ðsupporting€Syngentaððs€petition€for€review€of€the€question€of€removalÐ O- Ðjurisdiction€under€the€All€Writs€Act.€€See€Pet.€(i).€€Henson€sought€aÐ I' Ðconditional€cross€petition€to€review€the€propriety€of€the€imposition€ofÐ C! Ðattorneysðð€sanctions€absent€an€express€finding€of€bad€faith€conduct.€Ð = ÐThis€Court€granted€review€on€the€All€Writs€Act€question,€see€122Ð 7  ÐS.Ct.€1062€(2002),€but€denied€certiorari€on€the€sanctions€matter.€Ð 1  ÐId.€at€1079.Ð +  ÐÌà@¤¤-šàò òSUMMARY€OF€THE€ARGUMENTó óˆÐ µ“  ÐÌà 8 àNeither€the€All€Writs€Act€nor€the€ancillary€jurisdictionÐ ? Ðdoctrine€permit€removal€of€a€case€without€the€original€jurisdictionÐ 9 Ðrequired€by€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1441.€€This€is€particularly€so€whereÐ 3 ÐCongress€has€established€the€statutory€scheme€for€removal,€alternateÐ -  Ðremedies€exist€to€vindicate€prior€federal€judgments,€and€any€otherÐ ' Ðresult€would€profoundly€unsettle€the€balance€of€authority€betweenÐ ! ÿ Ðstate€and€federal€courts.Ð !ù Ðà 8 à1.€€Petitioners€concede€that€the€All€Writs€Act€(ð ðAWAðð)Ð `"> Ðcannot,€on€its€own,€provide€the€original€jurisdiction€required€forÐ Z#8 Ðremoval€under€section€1441.€€See€Pet.€Br.€6,€9.€€The€originalÐ T$2 Ðjurisdiction€requirement€is€a€statutory€one,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1441(a),Ð N%, Ðconsistently€recognized€by€this€Court,€and€has€never€been€relaxedÐ H&& Ðabsent€a€clear€declaration€by€Congress€to€that€effect.€€See€òòCity€ofÐ B'  ÐChicago€v.€Intððl€Coll.€of€Surgeonsóó,€522€U.S.€156,€163€(1997);òòÐ <( ÐOklahoma€Tax€Commððn€v.€Grahamóó,€489€U.S.€838,€841€(1989).€Ð 6) ÐNo€basis€for€original€jurisdiction€was€presented€by€the€amendedÐ "  Ðclass€action€petition€filed€by€Respondent.€€J.A.€94a.Ð  ú Ðà 8 àTwo€hundred€years€of€this€Courtððs€jurisprudence€has€heldÐ a ? Ðthat€the€All€Writs€Act,€now€codified€at€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1651(a),€cannotÐ [9 Ðprovide€the€original€jurisdiction€required€by€the€removal€statutes.€Ð U3 ÐSee€òòMcIntire€v.€Woodóó,€11€U.S.€(7€Cranch)€504,€506€(1813);òòÐ O- ÐClinton€v.€Goldsmithóó,€526€U.S.€529,€534„35€(1999).€€This€isÐ I' Ðentirely€consonant€with€the€statutory€language€of€the€AWA€whichÐ C! Ðmakes€clear€that€federal€courts€can€issue€writs€only€ð ðin€aid€of€theirÐ = Ðrespective€jurisdictions.€.€.€.ðð€€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1651(a).Ð 7  Ðà 8 à2.€€Even€if€the€All€Writs€Act€could€be€construed€to€sanctionÐ |Z  Ðremovals€to€federal€court€without€original€jurisdiction,€theÐ vT  Ðð ðextraordinary€circumstancesðð€that€would€be€required,€consistentÐ pN  Ðwith€the€AWAððs€requirement€that€a€writ€only€issue€where€ð ðnecessaryÐ jH  Ðor€appropriateðð€and€ð ðagreeable€to€the€usages€and€principles€of€law,ððÐ dB Ðid.,€òòUnited€States€v.€New€York€Tel.€Co.óó,€434€U.S.€159,€172Ð ^< Ð(1977),€are€not€present€where€either€(1)€a€federal€statutory€remedyÐ X6 Ðalready€exists,€or€(2)€other€mechanisms€are€available€to€secure€relief.€Ð R0 ÐRemovals€based€on€the€All€Writs€Act€can€be€neither€appropriate€norÐ L* Ðnecessary.Ð F$ Ðà 8 àResort€to€the€All€Writs€Act€is€ð ðððappropriately€confined€byÐ ‹i ÐCongressðð,ððòò€New€York€Tel.€Co.óó,€434€U.S.€at€172„73€(quotingÐ … c ÐòòAdams€v.€United€States€ex€rel.€McCannóó,€317€U.S.€269,€273Ð !] Ð(1942)),€and€ð ð[w]here€a€statute€specifically€addresses€the€particularÐ y"W Ðissue€at€hand,€it€is€that€authority,€and€not€the€All€Writs€Act,€that€isÐ s#Q Ðcontrolling.ððòò€€Pennsylvania€Bureau€of€Corr.€v.€United€StatesÐ m$K ÐMarshals€Serv.óó,€474€U.S.€34,€43€(1985).€€Since€removal€is€solelyÐ g%E Ðconditioned€by€Act€of€Congress,€in€no€way€could€a€ð ðcommon€lawððÐ a&? Ðremoval€be€considered€an€appropriate€exercise€of€judicial€powerÐ ['9 Ðunder€the€AWA.Ð U(3 Ðà 8 àNecessity€is€also€a€threshold€statutory€requirement€under€theÐ "  ÐAll€Writs€Act,€òòAdamsóó,€317€U.S.€at€273,€and€demands€that€a€partyÐ  ú Ðnot€have€available€to€it€other,€satisfactory,€remedial€mechanisms.€€InÐ  ô Ðthis€case,€Petitioners€had€no€fewer€than€two€alternatives€to€seekingÐ î Ðan€unauthorized€removal€to€federal€court.€€First,€they€could€have,Ð  è Ðconsistent€with€the€relitigation€exception€to€the€Anti„Injunction€Act,Ð â Ð28€U.S.C.€ðð€2283,€sought€to€enjoin€the€state€proceedings€in€anÐ þÜ Ðaction€brought€in€federal€court€for€matters€actually€decided€earlier€byÐ øÖ Ðthe€district€court.€€See€òòChick€Kam€Choo€v.€Exxon€Corpóó.,€486Ð òÐ ÐU.S.€140,€147„48€(1988).€€An€injunction€may€be€properly€broughtÐ ìÊ  Ðbefore€a€state€court€has€ruled€on€the€merits€of€the€res€judicata€issue,Ð æÄ  Ðsee€òòParsons€Steel,€Inc.€v.€First€Alabama€Bank,óó€474€U.S.€518,Рྠ Ð524€(1986);€and€such€is€less€offensive€to€the€prerogatives€of€stateÐ Ú¸  Ðtribunals€than€actually€ousting€state€court€jurisdiction€via€removal€ofÐ Ô²  Ða€case.€€The€second€alternative€available€to€Petitioners€was€simplyРά  Ðto€allow€Louisianaððs€courts€to€rule€on€the€preclusive€effects€of€theРȦ Ðearlier€federal€judgment,€confident€that€they€would€reach€the€correctР  Ðresult.€€See€id.€at€525;€òòRivet€v.€Regions€Bank€of€Louisianaóó,€522Ð ¼š ÐU.S.€470,€478€(1998).€€In€any€event,€an€extra„statutory€removalÐ ¶” Ðunder€these€circumstances€can€never€be€a€necessary€application€ofÐ °Ž Ðthe€relief€afforded€by€the€All€Writs€Act.Ð ªˆ Ðà 8 à3.€€Assuming€the€question€of€ancillary€jurisdiction€is€evenÐ ïÍ Ðproperly€before€this€Court,€that€doctrine€cannot€provide€the€missingÐ é Ç Ðlink€for€federal€jurisdiction€otherwise€absent€from€this€case.€€WhileÐ ã!Á Ðancillary€jurisdiction€might€be€invoked€ð ðto€enable€a€court€to€.€.€.Ð Ý"» Ðeffectuate€its€decrees,ðð€òòKokkonen€v.€Guardian€Life€Ins.€Co.€ofÐ ×#µ ÐAm.óó,€511€U.S.€375,€380€(1994),€such€cannot€be€properlyÐ Ñ$¯ Ðunderstood€to€allow€the€removal€of€cases€that€are€otherwiseÐ Ë%© Ðineligible€under€section€1441€because€of€a€lack€of€originalÐ Å&£ Ðjurisdiction.€€Moreover,€ancillary€enforcement€jurisdiction€couldÐ ¿' Ðpossibly€justify€removal€only€to€a€federal€court€that€had€issued€theÐ ¹(— Ðoriginal€judgment€in€question.€€That€is€not€the€case€here,€and€theÐ "  Ðrequired€transfer€of€the€removed€action€to€the€issuing€court,€J.A.Ð  ú Ð65a,€voids€any€conceivable€ancillary€jurisdiction€under€òòKokkonenóó.Ð  ô Ðà 8 àð ðAncillary€enforcement€jurisdiction€is,€at€its€core,€a€creatureÐ [9 Ðof€necessity.ðð€€òòPeacock€v.€Thomasóó,€516€U.S.€349,€359€(1996).€Ð U3 ÐNo€necessity€can€be€shown€here€by€virtue€of€the€availability€toÐ O- ÐPetitioners€of€the€two€complete€alternatives€of€an€anti„suit€injunctionÐ I' Ðand€deference€to€state€courtsðð€preclusion€determinations.€€Thus€noneÐ C! Ðof€the€predicates€for€even€a€notional€application€of€ancillaryÐ = Ðjurisdiction€can€be€argued€to€exist€here.€€Indeed,€judicialÐ 7  Ðcountenance€of€such€a€theory€could€fundamentally€alter€the€balanceÐ 1  Ðof€power€between€state€and€federal€courts,€without€the€requiredÐ +  Ðapproval€of€Congress,€and€might€raise€the€specter€of€anÐ %  Ðunconstitutional€expansion€of€federal€court€jurisdiction€beyondÐ ý  ÐArticle€III€limits.Ð ÷  ÐÌà@NN4šàò òARGUMENTó óˆÐ £ ÐÌÓ ÍLÓà@ÚÚ$šàò òI.€€€THE€ALL€WRITS€ACT€CAN€NEVER€PROVIDE€ˆÐ -  Ðà@ªª'šàTHE€ORIGINAL€JURISDICTION€REQUIREDˆÐ ' Ðà@ee'šàFOR€REMOVAL€UNDER€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1441ó óˆÐ ! ÿ ÐÌà 8 àThis€case€requires€the€Court€to€consider€and€confirm€someÐ "ó Ðfirst€principles€of€federal€jurisdiction.€€One€of€those€implicated€hereÐ #í Ðis€that€removal€is€limited€to€instances€where€cases€could€be€within€theÐ  $ç Ðoriginal€jurisdiction€of€federal€district€courts,€and€that€otherwiseÐ %á Ðremoval€is€a€procedure€completely€constrained€by€Act€of€Congress.€Ð ý%Û ÐPetitioners€properly€conceded€in€their€removal€papers,€see€J.A.€60a„Ð ÷&Õ Ð63a,€that€removal€would€not€have€been€permitted€in€this€case,€but€forÐ ñ'Ï Ðtheir€assertion€of€the€All€Writs€Act,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1651(a)€(1994)Ð ë(É Ð(ð ðAWAðð).€€To€prevail€in€this€submission,€Petitioners€would€have€toÐ "  Ðdemonstrate€either€(1)€original€jurisdiction€is€not€required€as€aÐ  ú Ðprerequisite€for€removal€here,€or€(2)€the€AWA€provides€anÐ  ô Ðindependent€basis€of€federal€jurisdiction.€€And€while€PetitionersÐ î Ðappear€to€have€conceded€that€these€arguments€are€really€untenable,Ð  è ÐRespondent€is€obliged€ð!ð€at€least€briefly€ð!ð€to€review€these€points.Ð â ÐÌÓ€ (ª½83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£A¾ÝÔ2ª½ÔÚ  ÚAÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 8 àÝ  ÝRemoval€under€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1441(a)€is€permissible€onlyÐ øÖ Ðwhere€the€district€court€would€have€original€jurisdiction€inÐ òÐ Ðthe€case.݃3£A¾n¾ÝŒÐìÊ 8T$8T$ ÐŒÝ  ÝÓ9%Œ Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ÜÜŒX9ÓÌÓ ÍLÓ€€à 8 à1.€€Section€1441(a)€allows€for€removal€of€certain€cases€fromРྠ Ðstate€court€to€federal€court.€€Section€1441(a)€provides€that€€ð ðanyÐ Ú¸  Ðcivil€action€brought€in€a€State€court€of€which€the€district€courts€of€theÐ Ô²  ÐUnited€States€have€original€jurisdiction,€may€be€removed€by€theРά  Ðdefendant€or€the€defendants,€to€the€district€court€of€the€United€StatesРȦ Ðfor€the€district€and€division€embracing€the€place€where€such€actionР  Ðis€pending.ðð€€Id.€€The€propriety€of€a€removal€has€thus€depended€onÐ ¼š Ðwhether€the€case€originally€could€have€been€filed€in€federal€court.€Ð ¶” ÐÔ  ÔòòCity€of€Chicago€v.€Intððl€Coll.€of€Surgeonsóó,€522€U.S.€156,€163Ð °Ž Ð(1997)€(citing€òòCaterpillar€Inc.€v.€Williamsóó,€482€U.S.€386,€392Ð ªˆ Ð(1987)€(ð ðOnly€state„court€actions€that€originally€could€have€beenÐ ¤‚ Ðfiled€in€federal€court€may€be€removed€to€federal€court€by€theÐ ž | Ðdefendant.ðð));€òòFranchise€Tax€Bd.€of€California€v.€Constr.Ð ˜!v ÐLaborers€Vacation€Trust€for€S.€Calóó.,€463€U.S.€1,€8€(1983)).€€Ð ’"p Ðà 8 àTherefore,€for€removal€to€a€federal€district€court€to€beÐ ×#µ Ðproper,€there€must€be€either€diversity€of€citizenship€between€theÐ Ñ$¯ Ðparties€or€a€federal€question€at€issue.€€See,€e.g.òò,€Caterpillaróó,€482Ð Ë%© ÐU.S.€at€393;€see€also€òòMartin€v.€Hunterððs€Lesseeóó,€14€U.S.€(1Ð Å&£ ÐWheat.)€304,€349€(1816).€€€Diversity€jurisdiction€is€not€availableÐ ¿' Ðwhen€any€plaintiff€is€a€citizen€of€the€same€state€as€any€defendant.€Ð ¹(— ÐòòOwen€Equip.€&€Erection€Co.€v.€Krogeróó,€437€U.S.€365,€373„74Ð "  Ð(1978).€€In€this€case,€there€was€a€lack€of€complete€diversity€amongÐ  ú Ðthe€parties.€€See€J.A.€96a.Ð  ô Ðà 8 àLikewise,€Respondentððs€class€action€petitions€presented€noÐ [9 Ðfederal€question.€€J.A.€106a„130a,€Resp.€Br.€App.€42a„47a.€€AÐ U3 Ðcase€only€asserts€a€federal€cause€of€action€when€the€plaintiffððs€well„Ð O- Ðpleaded€complaint€raises€issues€of€federal€law.€€òòMetropolitan€LifeÐ I' ÐIns.€Co.€v.€Tayloróó,€481€U.S.€58,€63€(1987);€òòLouisville€&Ð C! ÐNashville€R.R.€Co.€v.€Mottleyóó,€211€U.S.€149,€152€(1908).€€In€theÐ = Ðcase€at€bar,€the€plaintiffsðð€complaint€did€not€raise€an€issue€of€federalÐ 7  Ðlaw.€€See€also€òòRivet€v.€Regions€Bank€of€Louisianaóó,€522€U.S.€470,Ð 1  Ð476„78€(1998)€(rejecting€ð ðartful€pleadingðð€doctrine€enigmaticallyÐ +  Ðadvanced€in€òòFederated€Depððt€Stores,€Inc.€v.€Moitieóó,€452€U.S.Ð %  Ð394,€397€n.2€(1981)).€€There€is€no€federal€question€jurisdictionÐ ý  Ðbecause,€ð ðCongress€has€not€authorized€removal€based€on€a€defenseÐ ÷  Ðor€an€anticipated€defense€federal€in€character.ðð€€òòRivetóó,€522€U.S.€atÐ ñ Ð472.€€And€since€ð ð[c]laim€preclusion€(res€judicata)€.€.€.€is€anÐ  ë Ðaffirmative€defense,ðð€id.€at€476€(citing€FRCP€8(c)€andòò€Blonder„Ð å ÐTongue€Labs.,€Inc.€v.€Univ.€of€Illinois€Found.óó,€402€U.S.€313,€350Ð ß Ð(1971)),€a€ð ðprior€federal€judgment€does€not€transform€.€.€.€state„lawÐ ûÙ Ðclaims€into€federal€claims€but€rather€extinguishes€them€altogether.ðð€Ð õÓ ÐId.€at€476„77.€€See€also€Lonny€Sheinkopf€Hoffman,€òòRemovalÐ ïÍ ÐJurisdiction€and€the€All€Writs€Actóó,€148€òòU.€Pa.€L.€Revóó.€401,€420„Ð é Ç Ð25€(1999)€(suggesting€òòRivetóó€entirely€forecloses€use€of€the€All€WritsÐ ã!Á ÐAct€for€removal).Ð Ý"» Ðà 8 àThis€action€could€not€have€been€originally€filed€in€federalÐ "$ Ðcourt€because€the€parties€were€not€completely€diverse€and€HensonÐ %ú Ðnever€raised€an€issue€of€federal€law.€€Therefore,€removal€of€this€caseÐ &ô Ðð!ð€in€the€normal€course€of€federal€procedure€ð!ð€would€have€beenÐ 'î Ðmanifestly€improper.Ð  (è Ðà 8 à2.€€Lest€it€be€suggested€that€Petitioners€could€have€relied€onÐ "  Ðsome€removal€mechanism€not€requiring€original€jurisdiction€in€theÐ  ú Ðfederal€district€court,€this€theory€would€be€unavailing.€€WhileÐ  ô ÐCongress€may,€in€its€discretion,€authorize€removal€without€conferringÐ î Ðoriginal€jurisdiction€on€the€federal€courts,€see€12€U.S.C.€ðð€632;€22Ð  è ÐU.S.C.€ðð€286g,€this€must€be€done€specifically€and€expressly.€Ð â ÐòòOklahoma€Tax€Commððn€v.€Grahamóó,€489€U.S.€838,€841€(1989).€Ð þÜ ÐNo€such€congressional€statement€was€made€in€the€All€Writs€Act€toÐ øÖ Ðthis€effect.€€Moreover,€where€Congress€has€allowed€removalÐ òÐ Ðunencumbered€by€the€requirement€of€original€jurisdiction,€it€has€eitherÐ ìÊ  Ðmade€a€cross„reference€to€the€provisions€of€28€U.S.C.€ðððð€1446„50,Ð æÄ  Ðor€has€prescribed€particular€procedures€and€modalities.€€See,€e.g.,Рྠ Ð9€U.S.C.€ðð€205;€12€U.S.C.€ðð€632.€€Again,€the€AWA€does€notÐ Ú¸  Ðindicate€any€such€procedural€allowance€by€Congress.€€See€JoanÐ Ô²  ÐSteinman,€òòThe€Newest€Frontier€of€Judicial€Activism:€RemovalРά  Ðunder€the€All€Writs€Actóó,€80€òòB.U.€L.€Revóó.€773,€820„21€(2000).€Ð Ȧ ÐÓ ÍLÓà 8 àIn€short,€no€basis€for€removal€jurisdiction€relied€upon€by€theÐ  ë ÐPetitioners€would€have€permitted€them€to€remove€Hensonððs€FirstÐ å ÐAmended€Class€Action,€J.A.€94a,€without€a€showing€of€originalÐ ß Ðjurisdiction€in€the€federal€district€court.€€Petitioners€are€thus€obligedÐ ûÙ Ðto€show€that€the€All€Writs€Act€confers€such,€and€this€they€cannot€do.Ð õÓ ЀÌÓ€ (š½88ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£¹ØÝÔ2š½ÔÚ  ÚBÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 8 àÝ  ÝThe€All€Writs€Act€does€not€provide€an€independent€basis€ofÐ é Ç Ðoriginal€jurisdiction.݃3£¹ØæØÝŒÐã!Á8T$8T$ ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÓ ÍLÓà 8 àWhile€this€point€appears€to€be€conceded€by€Petitioners,€seeÐ ×#µ ÐPet.€Br.€6,€9€(ð ðThe€[All€Writs]€Act€does€not€provide€federal€courtsÐ Ñ$¯ Ðwith€an€independent€grant€of€jurisdiction.ðð),€it€is€important€to€explainÐ Ë%© Ðwhy€this€is€so.€€Ð Å&£ Ðà 8 à1.€€As€courts€of€limited€jurisdiction,€the€federal€courtsÐ  (è Ðpossess€only€that€power€authorized€by€the€Constitution€and€statutes.€Ð )â ÐòòKokkonen€v.€Guardian€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€511€U.S.€375,€377€(1994)Ð "  Ð(citing€òòWilly€v.€Coastal€Corpóó.,€503€U.S.€131,€136„37€(1992);Ð  ú ÐòòBender€v.€Williamsport€Area€Sch.€Distòòóóóó.,€475€U.S.€534,€541Ð  ô Ð(1986)).€€ð ðIt€is€to€be€presumed€that€a€case€lies€outside€this€limitedÐ î Ðjurisdiction.ðð€€Id.€at€377€(citing€òòTurner€v.€Bank€of€N.€Am.óó,€4€U.S.Ð  è Ð(4€Dall.)€8,€11€(1799)).€€The€burden€of€establishing€the€contraryÐ â Ðrests€upon€the€party€asserting€the€federal€courtsðð€jurisdiction.€€Id.Ð þÜ Ð(citing€òòMcNutt€v.€General€Motors€Acceptance€Corp.óó€òòof€Indóó.,€298Ð øÖ ÐU.S.€178,€182„83€(1936)).Ð òÐ Ðà 8 àThe€power€of€the€federal€courts€is€limited€by€Acts€ofÐ 7  ÐCongress.€€òòKrogeróó,€437€U.S.€at€372€(citing€òòPalmore€v.€UnitedÐ 1  ÐStatesóó,€411€U.S.€389,€401€(1973);òò€Lockerty€v.€Phillipsóó,€319€U.S.Ð +  Ð182,€187€(1943);€òòKline€v.€Burke€Constr.€Co.óó,€260€U.S.€226,€234Ð %  Ð(1922);€òòCary€v.€Curtisóó,€44€U.S.€(3€How.)€236€(1845)).€€Even€ifÐ ý  Ðjurisdiction€over€a€claim€is€within€the€power€of€the€federal€courtsÐ ÷  Ðunder€Article€III€of€the€Constitution,€it€is€not€within€the€jurisdiction€ofÐ ñ Ðthe€federal€courts€unless€Congress€has€statutorily€grantedÐ  ë Ðjurisdiction.€€It€is€up€to€Congress€ð!ð€not€the€courts€ð!ð€to€prescribe€theÐ å Ðconditions€of€removal€of€matters€to€federal€tribunals,€and€thusÐ ß Ðpotentially€to€unsettle€the€delicate€balance€of€concurrent€jurisdictionsÐ ûÙ Ðbetween€federal€and€state€courts.€€òòRivetóó,€522€U.S.€at€474.Ð õÓ Ðà 8 à2.€€This€Court€has€long€recognized€that€the€All€Writs€Act,€28Ð :  ÐU.S.C.€ðð€1651,€and€its€precursor€statutes€cannot€provide€anÐ 4! Ðindependent€basis€of€federal€court€jurisdiction.€€See€Hoffman,€supra,Ð ."  Ð148€òòU.€Pa.€L.€Revóó.€at€433„39.€€This€is€clear€from€the€text€of€theÐ (# ÐAWA,€as€well€as€the€consistent€jurisprudence€of€this€Court€inÐ "$ Ðglossing€its€terms.Ð %ú Ðà 8 àà  àa.€€The€All€Writs€Act€allows€federal€courts€to€ð ðissueÐ a&? Ðall€writs€necessary€or€appropriate€in€aid€of€their€respectiveÐ ['9 Ðjurisdictions€and€agreeable€to€the€usages€and€principles€of€law.ðð€€28Ð U(3 ÐU.S.C.€ðð€1651(a).€€The€phrase€ð ðin€aid€of€their€respectiveÐ "  Ðjurisdictionsðð€would€be€meaningless€if€Congress€had€intended€toÐ  ú Ðhave€the€AWA€serve€as€an€independent€basis€of€federal€jurisdiction.€Ð  ô ÐManifestly,€the€All€Writs€Act€did€not€confer€original€subject€matterÐ î Ðjurisdiction€on€federal€district€courts.Ð  è Ðà 8 àà  àb.€€This€straightforward€construction€of€the€All€WritsÐ O- ÐAct€has€been€invariably€embraced€by€this€Court€for€nearly€twoÐ I' Ðcenturies.€€In€òòMcIntire€v.€Woodóó,€11€U.S.€(7€Cranch)€503€(1813),Ð C! Ðthe€Court€had€its€first€opportunity€to€interpret€section€14€of€theÐ = ÐJudiciary€Act€of€1789,€ch.€20,€ðð€14,€1€Stat.€73,€81„82€(federalÐ 7  Ðcourts€may€ð ðissue€writs€of€Scire€facias,€habeas€Corpus,€and€all€otherÐ 1  Ðwrits€not€specifically€provided€for€by€Statute,€which€may€beÐ +  Ðnecessary€for€the€exercise€of€their€respective€jurisdictions,€andÐ %  Ðagreeable€to€the€principles€and€usages€of€law.ðð)€ð"ð€the€predecessorÐ ý  Ðof€the€current€All€Writs€Act.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Court€held€that€the€All€Writs€ActÐ ÷  Ðconferred€no€independent€jurisdiction€on€the€federal€courts.€€Id.€atÐ ñ Ð506.€€The€plaintiff€in€òòMcIntireóó€urged€that€ðð€14€of€the€Judiciary€ActÐ  ë Ðallowed€a€federal€circuit€court€to€issue€a€writ€of€mandamus€to€theÐ å Ðregister€of€a€state€land€office€on€the€basis€of€federal€law.€€BecauseÐ ß ÐCongress€had€not€granted€jurisdiction€over€the€case€to€the€federalÐ ûÙ Ðcourt,€however,€the€federal€court€had€no€power€to€issue€a€writ€ofÐ õÓ Ðmandamus€under€section€14.€€The€power€of€the€federal€court€wasÐ ïÍ Ðð ðconfined€exclusively€to€those€cases€in€which€it€may€be€necessary€toÐ é Ç Ðthe€exercise€of€their€jurisdiction.ðð€€Id.€€Thus,€section€14€conferred€noÐ ã!Á Ðindependent€basis€of€jurisdiction.Ð Ý"» Ðà 8 àThe€Court€reaffirmed€the€holding€of€òòMcIntireóó€and€extendedÐ "$ Ðits€logic€in€òòMcClung€v.€Sillimanóó,€19€U.S.€(6€Wheat.)€598€(1821),Ð "  Ða€case€that€involved€the€same€parties€and€issue€as€òòMcIntireóó.€€WhileÐ  ú Ðthe€Court€noted€the€language€of€section€14€allowed€a€court€to€issueÐ  ô Ða€writ€ð ðnecessary€for€the€exerciseðð€of€its€jurisdiction,€the€Court€alsoÐ î Ðnoted€the€case€before€it€involved€an€instance€of€ð ðequivocal€language,Ð  è Ðin€which€the€proposition,€though€true€in€the€abstract,€is€in€itsÐ â Ðapplication€to€the€subject€glaringly€incorrect.ðð€€Id.€at€601.€€The€CourtÐ þÜ Ðheld€section€14€could€only€have€been€intended€to€vest€a€power€toÐ øÖ Ðissue€writs€in€cases€where€jurisdiction€already€exists,€ð ðand€not€whereÐ òÐ Ðit€is€to€be€courted€or€acquired,€by€means€of€the€writ€proposed€to€beÐ ìÊ  Ðsued€out.ðð€€Id.€at€601„02.Ð æÄ  Ðà 8 àIn€a€case€with€particular€similarities€with€this€one,Ð +  ÐòòRosenbaum€v.€Baueróó,€120€U.S.€450€(1887),€this€Court€made€clearÐ %  Ðthat€an€application€for€mandamus€under€the€All€Writs€Act€in€sectionÐ ý  Ð14€(then€codified€as€Rev.€Stat.€ðð€716)€could€not€provide€the€basisÐ ÷  Ðrequired€to€give€the€federal€court€jurisdiction,€either€original€or€byÐ ñ Ðremoval.€€Id.€at€456„57.€€There,€one€of€the€parties€attempted€to€relyÐ  ë Ðon€section€two€of€the€Act€of€March€3,€1875,€18€Stat.€470,€to€boot„Ð å Ðstrap€removal€jurisdiction€through€the€AWA.€€But€this€Court€madeÐ ß Ðclear€that€a€long€line€of€precedent€precluded€the€use€of€the€All€WritsÐ ûÙ ÐAct€to€provide€an€original€basis€of€jurisdiction,€even€when€used€inÐ õÓ Ðcombination€with€the€removal€of€a€case€from€state€court.€€See€id.Ð ïÍ Ðà 8 àà  àc.€€More€recently,€the€Court€has€held€that€theÐ 4! Ðmodern€version€(dating€from€1948)€of€ðð€14€of€the€Judiciary€Act,€theÐ ."  ÐAll€Writs€Act,€authorizes€a€federal€court€to€ð ðissue€such€commandsÐ (# Ð.€.€.€as€may€be€necessary€or€appropriate€to€effectuate€and€preventÐ "$ Ðthe€frustration€of€orders€it€has€previously€issued€in€its€exercise€ofÐ %ú Ðjurisdiction€òòotherwise€obtainedóó.ðð€òòUnited€States€v.€New€York€Tel.Ð &ô ÐCo.óó,€434€U.S.€159,€172€(1977)€(emphasis€added).€€And€while€someÐ 'î Ðlower€federal€courts€have€held€that€federal€courts€may€issueÐ  (è Ðextraordinary€writs€as€though€the€All€Writs€Act€does,€in€fact,€provideÐ )â Ðan€independent€basis€of€jurisdiction,€this€Court€consistently€has€heldÐ "  Ðthat€it€does€not.€€See€also€Charles€Alan€Wright€&€Mary€Kay€Kane,Ð  ú Ð20€òòFederal€Practice€and€Procedure:€€Federal€PracticeÐ  ô ÐDeskbookóó€ðð€40,€at€308€n.27€(2002)€(the€practice€of€using€theÐ î ÐAWA€to€justify€removal€ð ðhas€been€persuasively€criticized€byÐ  è Ðcommentators.ðð);€Henry€Paul€Monaghan,€òòAntisuit€Injunctions€andÐ â ÐPreclusion€Against€Absent€Nonresident€Class€Membersóó,€98Ð þÜ ÐòòColum.€L.€Revóó.€1148,€1187„91€(1998)€(rejecting€use€of€AWA€asÐ øÖ Ðan€independent€basis€for€in€personam€jurisdiction€over€nonresidentÐ òÐ Ðclass€members).Ð ìÊ  Ðà 8 àFor€example,€in€òòPennsylvania€Bureau€of€Correction€v.Ð 1  ÐUnited€States€Marshals€Serviceóó,€474€U.S.€34€(1985),€this€CourtÐ +  Ðobserved€that€the€All€Writs€Act€is€confined€ð ðto€filling€the€intersticesÐ %  Ðof€federal€judicial€power€when€those€gaps€threatened€to€thwart€theÐ ý  Ðotherwise€proper€exercise€of€federal€courtsðð€jurisdiction.ðð€€Id.€at€41.€Ð ÷  ÐSee€also€òòCarlisle€v.€United€Statesóó,€517€U.S.€416,€429€(1996)Ð ñ Ð(AWA€is€a€ð ðresidual€source€of€authorityðð€not€generally€available€toÐ  ë Ðprovide€alternatives€to€other,€adequate€remedies€at€law).€€Also€inÐ å ÐòòClinton€v.€Goldsmithóó,€526€U.S.€529€(1999),€the€Court€held€thatÐ ß Ðthe€express€terms€of€the€AWA€confine€a€courtððs€power€to€issueÐ ûÙ Ðwrits€ð ðððin€aid€ofððits€existing€statutory€jurisdiction;€[and]€the€Act€doesÐ õÓ Ðnot€enlarge€that€jurisdiction.ðð€€Id.€at€534„35€(quoting€òòPennsylvaniaÐ ïÍ ÐBureauóó,€474€U.S.€at€41;€and€citing€16€Charles€Alan€Wright,€ArthurÐ é Ç ÐR.€Miller€&€Edward€H.€Cooper,€òòFederal€Practice€andÐ ã!Á ÐProcedure€óóðð€3932,€at€470€(2d€ed.€1996)€and€19€J.€Moore€&€G.Ð Ý"» ÐPratt,€òòMooreððs€Federal€Practiceóó€ðð€204.02[4]€(3d€ed.€1998))òòóó;Ð ×#µ Ðsee€also€Hoffman,€supra,€148€òòU.€Pa.€L.€Revóó.€at€433„35.€€Ð Ñ$¯ ÐÓ ÍLÓà 8 àAmicus€curiae€of€Petitioners€attempts€to€minimize€theÐ &ô Ðrelevance€of€these€cases,€see€Brief€of€Products€Liability€AdvisoryÐ 'î ÐCouncil€(PLAC€Br.),€at€17„18,€by€either€suggesting€they€do€notÐ  (è Ðapply€in€the€removal€context€or€by€deflecting€the€inquiry€into€ancillaryÐ )â Ðjurisdiction.€€This€move€to€distinguish€a€long€line€of€this€CourtððsÐ "  Ðauthorities€should€be€unavailing.€€These€precedents€stand€for€theÐ  ú Ðclear€and€unremarkable€proposition€that€the€AWA€has€never€beenÐ  ô Ðintended€to€ð ðboot„strapðð€or€justify€otherwise€impermissibleÐ î Ðinvocations€of€federal€court€jurisdiction.€€Indeed,€at€least€one€of€theÐ  è Ðcases€ð!ð€òòRosenbaum€v.€Baueróó€ð!ð€certainly€contemplated€the€situationÐ â Ðpresented€here€where€a€party€attempts€to€use€removal€as€aÐ þÜ Ðmechanism€for€seeking€federal€court€review€of€a€case€that€otherwiseÐ øÖ Ðwould€be€ineligible.€€See€120€U.S.€at€456„57.€€Nor,€for€reasons€fullyÐ òÐ Ðelaborated€below,€see€infra€at€31„37,€does€mixing€the€idioms€of€theÐ ìÊ  ÐAll€Writs€Act€and€ancillary€removal€jurisdiction€concoct€some€sortÐ æÄ  Ðof€judge„made€ð ðjurisdictional€caulkðð€that€certainly€has€not€beenРྠ Ðsanctioned€by€Congress.Ð Ú¸  ÐÌÌà@ÈÈ&šàò òII.€€€THERE€CAN€BE€NO€OTHER€BASIS€FORˆÐ Ȧ Ðà@(šàREMOVAL€UNDER€THE€ALL€WRITS€ACT.ó óˆÐ   ÐØ! !ØÓ€ (ʽ88ÓÌà 8 àThe€All€Writs€Act,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1651(a),€allows€courts€toÐ ¶” Ðissue€orders€under€ð ðexceptional€circumstances,ðð€òòPennsylvaniaÐ °Ž ÐBureauóó,€474€U.S.€at€43,€and€ð ðas€may€be€necessary€or€appropriateÐ ªˆ Ðto€effectuate€and€prevent€the€frustration€of€orders€it€has€previouslyÐ ¤‚ Ðissued€in€jurisdiction€otherwise€obtained.ðð€€òòNew€York€Tel.€Co.óó,€434Ð ž | ÐU.S.€at€172€(quoting€All€Writs€Act).€€This€seemingly€broad€grant€ofÐ ˜!v Ðjudicial€authority€has€its€limits,€however.€€These€include,€at€aÐ ’"p Ðminimum,€that€(1)€where€a€federal€statutory€mechanism€alreadyÐ Œ#j Ðexists,€courts€may€not€fashion€their€own€ad€hoc€remedies,€thusÐ †$d Ðmaking€recourse€to€the€AWA€ð ð[in]appropriateðð€and€not€ð ðagreeableÐ €%^ Ðto€the€usages€and€principles€of€law,ðð€and€(2)€other€mechanisms€areÐ z&X Ðavailable€to€secure€relief,€thus€making€recourse€to€the€AWAÐ t'R Ðð ð[un]necessary.ðð€€Neither€the€element€of€appropriateness€or€theÐ n(L Ðrequirement€of€necessity€is€satisfied€in€this€case.Ð "  ÐÌA.à0 8 àRecourse€to€the€AWA€is€inappropriate€because€CongressÐ  ô Ðhas€already€specified€the€mechanism€for€removals.€Ðî8T$8T$ ÐÓ€ (º½88ÓÌÓ ÍLÓà 8 àThe€All€Writs€Act€cannot€justify€a€ð ðcommon€lawðð€removal,Ð â Ðunconstrained€and€unacknowledged€by€Congress.€€PetitionersÐ þÜ Ðappear€to€concede€this.€€Pet.€Br.€9€(ð ðLikewise,€the€[AWA]€does€notÐ øÖ Ðòòenlargeóó€the€federal€courtsðð€existing€statutory€jurisdiction.ðð€(originalÐ òÐ Ðemphasis)€(citing€òòClinton€v.€Goldsmithóó,€526€U.S.€at€535)).€In€òòNewÐ ìÊ  ÐYork€Telephoneóó,€the€Court€specifically€noted€the€All€Writs€Act€wasÐ æÄ  Ðavailable,€ð ððð[u]nless€[the€Actððs€use€is]€appropriately€confined€byРྠ ÐCongressðð.ðð€€434€U.S.€at€172„73€(quoting€òòAdams€v.€United€StatesÐ Ú¸  Ðex€rel.€McCannóó,€317€U.S.€269,€273€(1942)).€€Judicial€discretion€toÐ Ô²  Ðallow€an€extra„statutory€removal€has€been€so€constrained€byРά  ÐCongress.€€€Ð Ȧ Ðà 8 àMore€recently,€this€Court€in€òòPennsylvania€BureauóóÐ  ë Ðdistinguished€instances€where€the€All€Writs€Act€was€the€only€methodÐ å Ðby€which€a€federal€court€could€ð ðachieve€the€rational€ends€of€lawððÐ ß Ðfrom€cases€in€which€there€are€other€alternative€statutory€mechanismsÐ ûÙ Ðavailable€for€the€court€to€use.€€474€U.S.€at€42€n.7€(citing€òòHarris€v.Ð õÓ ÐNelsonóó,€394€U.S.€286,€299€(1969),€quoting€òòPrice€v.€Johnstonóó,Ð ïÍ Ð334€U.S.€266,€282€(1948);€òòAdamsóó,€317€U.S.€at€273).€€Moreover,Ð é Ç Ðthe€Court€in€òòPennsylvania€Bureauóó€indicated€that€the€formerÐ ã!Á Ðlanguage€of€the€All€Writs€Act,€contained€in€section€14€of€the€FirstÐ Ý"» ÐJudiciary€Act,€limiting€writs€to€those€ð ðnot€specifically€provided€for€byÐ ×#µ ÐStatute,ðð€was€deemed€to€be€applicable€to€the€modern€form€of€theÐ Ñ$¯ ÐAct.€€See€474€U.S.€at€41.€€See€also€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1651€(1994)Ð Ë%© Ð(revisersðð€note€of€1948)€(indicating€that€revision€was€intended€toÐ Å&£ Ðreflect€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòUnited€States€Alkali€Exp.€Assððn,Ð ¿' ÐInc.€v.€United€Statesóó,€325€U.S.€196,€203€(1945),€and€not€to€alterÐ ¹(— Ðany€other€element€or€requirement€contained€in€the€earlier€versions€ofÐ "  Ðthe€statute).€€Moreover,€in€òòUnited€States€Alkalióó,€this€CourtÐ  ú Ðpointedly€held€that€ð ðwrits€may€not€be€used€as€a€substitute€for€anÐ  ô Ðauthorized€appeal;€and€where,€as€here,€the€statutory€scheme€permitsÐ î Ðappellate€review€of€interlocutory€orders€only€on€appeal€from€the€finalÐ  è Ðjudgment,€review€by€certiorari€or€other€extraordinary€writ€is€notÐ â Ðpermissible.ðð€€325€U.S.€at€203.Ð þÜ Ðà 8 àThis€Court€in€òòPennsylvania€Bureauóó€thus€required€the€useÐ C! Ðof€other€available€statutory€measures€instead€of€resorting€to€the€AllÐ = ÐWrits€Act.€€ð ðWhere€a€statute€specifically€addresses€the€particularÐ 7  Ðissue€at€hand,€it€is€that€authority,€and€not€the€All€Writs€Act,€that€isÐ 1  Ðcontrolling.ðð€€474€U.S.€at€43.€€ð ð[The€All€Writs€Act]€does€notÐ +  Ðauthorize€[courts]€to€issue€ad€hoc€writs€whenever€compliance€withÐ %  Ðstatutory€procedures€appears€inconvenient€or€less€appropriate.ðð€€Id.€Ð ý  ÐSee€also€òòClinton€v.€Goldsmithóó,€526€U.S.€at€537€(AWA€ð ðinvests€aÐ ÷  Ðcourt€with€a€power€essentially€equitable€and,€as€such,€not€generallyÐ ñ Ðavailable€to€provide€alternatives€to€other,€adequate€remedies€atÐ  ë Ðlaw.ðð);€òòCarlisleóó,€517€U.S.€at€429€(ð ðððThe€All€Writs€Act€is€a€residualÐ å Ðsource€of€authority€to€issue€writs€that€are€not€otherwise€covered€byÐ ß Ðstatuteðð.ðð)€(quoting€òòPennsylvania€Bureauóó,€474€U.S.€at€43).€Ð ûÙ ÐConsequently,€the€Court€ruled€inòò€Pennsylvania€Bureauóó€thatÐ õÓ Ðrecourse€to€the€AWA€was€inappropriate€because€of€the€existence€ofÐ ïÍ Ðrelevant€provisions€of€the€habeas€corpus€statute.€€See€474€U.S.€atÐ é Ç Ð42„43.Ð ã!Á ÐÓ ÍLÓà 8 àIt€hardly€bears€reminding€that€removal€is€solely€a€creature€ofÐ (# Ðstatute.€€òòShamrock€Oil€&€Gas€Corp.€v.€Sheetsóó,€313€U.S.€100,Ð "$ Ð108„09€(1941);€òòGreat€N.€Ry.€Co.€v.€Alexanderóó,€246€U.S.€276,Ð %ú Ð280€(1918);€òòGold„Washing€&€Water€Co.€v.€Keyesóó,€96€U.S.€199Ð &ô Ð(1877).€€The€assertion€by€amicus€curiae€of€Petitioners,€PLAC€Br.Ð 'î Ð19,€that€the€removal€statute€somehow€fails€to€occupy€the€field€ofÐ  (è Ðcongressional€action€in€this€sphere,€or€can€be€equated€to€anÐ )â Ðð ðordinary€writðð€within€the€meaning€of€the€AWA,€id.€22€n.6,Ð "  Ðoverlooks€this€Courtððs€holdings€that€removal€is€a€unique€statutoryÐ  ú Ðmechanism€with€significant€federalism€implications€for€the€properÐ  ô Ðbalance€of€power€between€federal€and€state€tribunals.€€It€is€simplyÐ î Ðextravagant€to€suggest€that€it€would€be€appropriate,€within€theÐ  è Ðmeaning€of€the€All€Writs€Actððs€language,€for€federal€courts€to€permitÐ â Ðremoval€of€a€case€where€the€clear€application€of€CongressððsÐ þÜ Ðstatutory€scheme€of€removal€would€bar€such€an€action.€€Under€noÐ øÖ Ðcircumstances€could€the€removal€of€a€case€be€considered€anÐ òÐ Ðappropriate€exercise€of€judicial€power€pursuant€to€the€All€Writs€Act.Ð ìÊ  ÐÌÐ  ྠ ÐB.à0 8 àIn€this€case,€removal€under€the€AWA€is€unnecessaryÐ "  Ðbecause€of€the€availability€of€injunctions€or€deference€toÐ  ú Ðstate€court€determinations€of€the€preclusive€effect€of€federalÐ  ô Ðjudgments.Ðî8T$8T$ ÐÌÓ ÍLÓà 8 àNecessity€is€a€threshold€element€for€the€application€of€the€AllÐ â ÐWrits€Act.€€This€is€entirely€consonant€with€the€All€Writs€ActððsÐ þÜ Ðstatutory€terms.€€As€this€Court€noted€in€òòAdamsóó,€the€two€preliminaryÐ øÖ Ðinquiries€for€invocation€of€the€AWA€are€whether€jurisdiction€over€theÐ òÐ Ðmatter€already€vests€in€the€federal€court,€and€then€ð ðcould€theÐ ìÊ  Ðissuance€of€the€writ€be€deemed€ððnecessary€for€the€exerciseðð€of€thatÐ æÄ  Ðjurisdiction?ðð€€317€U.S.€at€273€(quoting€òòWhitney€v.€Dickóó,€202€U.S.Рྠ Ð132,€136„37€(1906)).€€Ð Ú¸  Ðà 8 àDespite€the€suggestion€of€amicus€curiae€of€Petitioners,€seeÐ ý  ÐPLAC€Br.€23,€necessity€has€always€been€regarded€by€this€Court€asÐ ÷  Ða€statutory€predicate€for€invocation€of€the€All€Writs€Act,€and€doesÐ ñ Ðnot€merely€come€into€play€by€informing€a€courtððs€discretion€as€toÐ  ë Ðwhich€sort€of€writ€is€to€be€selected€or€what€sort€of€relief€is€to€beÐ å Ðgranted.€€See€òòAllied€Chem.€Corp.€v.€Daiflon,€Incóó.,€449€U.S.€33,Ð ß Ð35€(1980)€(ð ð[i]n€order€to€insure€that€the€writ€will€issue€only€inÐ ûÙ Ðextraordinary€circumstances,€this€Court€has€required€that€a€partyÐ õÓ Ðseeking€issuance€have€no€other€means€to€attain€the€relief€heÐ ïÍ Ðdesires.ðð);€òòEx€Parte€Republic€of€Peruóó,€318€U.S.€578,€584€(1943)Ð é Ç Ð(discussing€section€262€of€1911€Judicial€Code,€a€precursor€to€theÐ ã!Á ÐAWA,€and€observing€that€ð ðcommon€law€writs,€like€equitableÐ Ý"» Ðremedies€.€.€.€are€usually€denied€where€other€adequate€remedy€isÐ ×#µ Ðavailable.ðð).Ð Ñ$¯ Ðà 8 àNecessity,€in€the€context€of€the€AWA,€means€that€recourseÐ &ô Ðto€a€particular€remedial€writ€offers€the€only€avenue€of€legitimate€reliefÐ 'î Ðsought€by€a€party.€€Notwithstanding€the€broad€language€in€òòNewÐ  (è ÐYork€Telephoneóó,€see€434€U.S.€at€172„75,€partly€repudiated€by€thisÐ )â ÐCourt€in€òòPennsylvania€Bureauóó,€see€474€U.S.€at€40„43,€but€stillÐ "  Ðextensively€relied€upon€by€Petitioners,€this€Court€was€careful€toÐ  ú Ðreaffirm€the€requirement€of€practical€necessity€by€noting€ð ðthat€withoutÐ  ô Ð[an€order€under€the€All€Writs€Act]€there€is€no€conceivable€way€inÐ î Ðwhich€the€[original€order]€by€the€District€Court€could€have€beenÐ  è Ðsuccessfully€accomplished.ðð€434€U.S.€at€175.€€See€also€òòUnitedÐ â ÐStates€Alkalióó,€325€U.S.€at€201„04.€€Although€ð ðnecessarinessðð€needÐ þÜ Ðnot€connote€that€a€court€ð ðcould€not€otherwise€physically€dischargeÐ øÖ Ðits€appellate€duties,ðð€òòAdamsóó,€317€U.S.€at€273,€it€does€require€thereÐ òÐ Ðbe€no€alternative€mechanisms€for€gaining€the€relief€desired.€€Ð ìÊ  Ðà 8 àIn€this€case,€Petitioners€had€no€fewer€than€two€alternativesÐ 1  Ðto€seeking€an€unauthorized€removal€of€Hensonððs€first€amended€classÐ +  Ðaction€petition€to€federal€court.€€Syngenta€could€have€applied€for€anÐ %  Ðinjunction€in€federal€court,€requiring€Henson€to€dismiss€the€stateÐ ý  Ðaction,€at€least€to€the€extent€it€was€inconsistent€with€the€terms€of€theÐ ÷  Ðearlier€federal€settlement.€€Alternatively,€Syngenta€could€have€ð!ðÐ ñ Ðconsistent€with€this€Courtððs€precedents€ð!ð€allowed€the€LouisianaÐ  ë Ðcourts€to€determine€the€proper€preclusive€effect€of€the€prior€federalÐ å Ðjudgment,€confident€that€the€state€courts€would€have€reached€theÐ ß Ðcorrect€result.€€The€availability€of€these€alternative€proceduralÐ ûÙ Ðmechanisms€made€recourse€to€removal€under€the€authority€of€the€AllÐ õÓ ÐWrits€Act€unnecessary.Ð ïÍ Ðà 8 à1.€€Instead€of€removing€cases,€federal€courts€can€properlyÐ 4! Ðissue,€pursuant€to€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2283,€an€injunction€to€have€the€stateÐ ."  Ðcourt€action€dismissed.€€The€Anti„Injunction€Act,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2283,Ð (# Ðprohibits€a€federal€court€from€enjoining€state€court€proceedingsÐ "$ Ðunless€one€of€the€three€express€statutory€exceptions€is€satisfied.€€ð ðAÐ %ú Ðcourt€of€the€United€States€may€not€grant€an€injunction€to€stayÐ &ô Ðproceedings€in€a€State€court€except€as€expressly€authorized€by€ActÐ 'î Ðof€Congress,€or€where€necessary€in€aid€of€its€jurisdiction,€or€toÐ  (è Ðprotect€or€effectuate€its€judgments.ððÓ6"ä ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!Œ Œ ŠX6Ó€€Id.€€The€essential€purpose€ofÐ )â Ðthe€Anti„Injunction€Act€is€to€ð ðforestall[]€ððthe€inevitable€frictionÐ "  Ðbetween€the€state€and€federal€courts€that€ensues€from€the€injunctionÐ  ú Ðof€state€judicial€proceedings€by€a€federal€court.ðððð€€òòChick€Kam€ChooÐ  ô Ðv.€Exxon€Corp.óó,€486€U.S.€140,€146€(1988)€(quotingòò€Vendo€Co.Ð î Ðv.€Lektro„Vend€Corp.,€óó433€U.S.€623,€630„631€(1977)).€€ByÐ  è Ðarticulating€three€express€exceptions€to€the€Anti„Injunction€Act,Ð â ÐCongress€recognized€that€federal€interference€with€state€proceedingsÐ þÜ Ðmay€sometimes€be€unavoidable.€€Congress€has€permitted€injunctionsÐ øÖ Ðin€certain€circumstances,€ð ðto€ensure€the€effectiveness€and€supremacyÐ òÐ Ðof€federal€law.ðð€€Id.Ð ìÊ  Ðà 8 àThe€relitigation€exception€to€the€Anti„Injunction€Act€wouldÐ 1  Ðhave€at€least€allowed€Syngenta€to€apply€for€an€injunction€of€the€stateÐ +  Ðcourt€proceedings,€although€whether€it€would€have€secured€suchÐ %  Ðrelief€would€have€turned€on€the€merits€of€its€preclusion€arguments.€Ð ý  ÐThe€relitigation€exception€finds€its€textual€basis€in€the€Anti„InjunctionÐ ÷  ÐActððs€provision€that€a€federal€court€can€enjoin€a€state€courtÐ ñ Ðproceeding€ð ðto€protect€or€effectuate€its€judgment.ðð€€28€U.S.C.€ððÐ  ë Ð2283.€€Once€again,€the€purpose€of€this€clause€has€been€well„Ð å Ðarticulated€by€this€Court:€ð ðThe€relitigation€exception€was€designed€toÐ ß Ðpermit€a€federal€court€to€prevent€state€litigation€of€an€issue€thatÐ ûÙ Ðpreviously€was€presented€to€and€decided€by€a€federal€court.€€It€isÐ õÓ Ðfounded€in€the€well„recognized€concepts€of€òòres€judicataóó€andÐ ïÍ Ðcollateral€estoppel.ðð€€òòChick€Kam€Choo,€óó486€U.S.€at€147.Ð é Ç Ðà 8 àà  àa.€€Respondent€is€mindful€that€there€are€significantÐ ."  Ðprerequisites€for€the€use€of€the€relitigation€exception€under€the€Anti„Ð (# ÐInjunction€Act,€consonant€with€the€important€federalism€goalsÐ "$ Ðadvanced€by€that€legislation.€€Each€of€these€threshold€requirementsÐ %ú Ðwould€have€been€satisfied€by€Syngenta,€had€they€applied€for€anÐ &ô Ðinjunction€within€a€reasonable€period€after€Hensonððs€filing€of€theÐ 'î Ðamended€class€action€petition.€€Aside€from€attaining€personalÐ  (è Ðjurisdiction€over€the€parties,€the€first€of€these€requirements€is€that€aÐ )â Ðfederal€court€must,€in€the€prior€proceeding,€have€actually€disputedÐ "  Ðthe€issue€that€was€later€sought€to€be€relitigated€and€the€federal€trierÐ  ú Ðof€fact€must€have€actually€resolved€it.€€See€òòAtlantic€Coast€Line€R.R.Ð  ô ÐCo.€v.€Bhd.€of€Locomotive€Engððrsóó,€398€U.S.€281,€287€(1970).€Ð î Ðð ð[A]n€essential€prerequisite€for€applying€the€relitigation€exception€isÐ  è Ðthat€the€claims€or€issues€which€the€federal€injunction€insulates€fromÐ â Ðlitigation€in€state€proceedings€actually€have€been€decided€by€theÐ þÜ Ðfederal€court.ðð€òòChick€Kam€Chooóó,€486€U.S.€at€148.€€ð ðMoreover€.Ð øÖ Ð.€.€this€prerequisite€is€strict€and€narrow.ðð€Id.€€Insofar€as€SyngentaÐ òÐ Ðcould€have€argued€in€its€injunction€application€that€the€stateÐ ìÊ  Ðproceeding€was€entirely€barred€by€the€earlier€federal€settlement€andÐ æÄ  Ðjudgment,€this€prerequisite€assuredly€would€have€been€satisfied.Рྠ Ðà 8 àUse€of€the€relitigation€exception€to€the€Anti„Injunction€ActÐ %  Ðis€also€limited€ð ðto€those€situations€in€which€the€state€court€has€not€yetÐ ý  Ðruled€on€the€merits€of€the€res€judicata€issue.ðð€€òòParsons€Steel,€Inc.€v.Ð ÷  ÐFirst€Alabama€Bankóó,€474€U.S.€518,€524€(1986).€€ð ð[U]nder€theÐ ñ ÐFull€Faith€and€Credit€Act€a€federal€court€must€give€the€sameÐ  ë Ðpreclusive€effect€to€a€state„court€judgment€as€another€court€of€thatÐ å ÐState€would€give.ðð€€Id.€atòò€óó523.€€The€relitigation€exception€of€theÐ ß ÐAnti„Injunction€Act€does€not€limit€application€of€the€Full€Faith€andÐ ûÙ ÐCredit€Act,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1738.€€See€òòParsons€Steelóó,€474€U.S.€atÐ õÓ Ð523„24.€€Once€the€state€court€has€ruled€on€the€res€judicata€issue,Ð ïÍ Ðð ðthen€the€Full€Faith€and€Credit€Act€becomes€applicable€and€federalÐ é Ç Ðcourts€must€turn€to€state€law€to€determine€the€preclusive€effect€of€theÐ ã!Á Ðstate€courtððs€decision.ððòò€€óóId.€at€524.€€Had€Syngenta€immediatelyÐ Ý"» Ðsought€an€injunction€in€federal€court€to€bar€the€state€proceedings,€itÐ ×#µ Ðwould€have€been€clear€that€the€state€court€had€not€ruled€on€the€resÐ Ñ$¯ Ðjudicata€issue,€satisfying€the€òòParsons€Steel€óótiming€requirement.€€TheÐ Ë%© ÐLouisiana€state€court€proceedings€had€not€reached€a€stage€of€rulingÐ Å&£ Ðon€the€prior€preclusive€effect€of€the€federal€settlement,€having€onlyÐ ¿' Ðinvited€the€plaintiffs€to€amend€their€complaint,€without€any€motion€orÐ ¹(— Ðruling€on€dismissal,€except€for€the€dismissal€of€the€settledÐ "  Ðchlordimeform€exposure€count.€€See€J.A.€86a.Ð  ú Ðà 8 àÓ?+Ü Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!ä ä ‰X?ÓAs€the€prerequisites€of€the€relitigation€exception€to€the€Anti„Ð a ? ÐInjunction€Act€were€satisfied€here,€an€injunction€could€have€beenÐ [9 Ðsought€from€a€federal€court€to€Henson€to€discontinue€the€state€courtÐ U3 Ðproceeding€(at€least€to€the€extent€that€a€federal€court€would€haveÐ O- Ðfound€that€the€state€court€proceedings€were€barred€by€the€earlierÐ I' Ðfederal€settlement).€€This€is€not€to€suggest,€of€course,€that€anÐ C! Ðinjunction€necessarily€would€have€issued€in€the€equitable€discretionÐ = Ðof€the€federal€court;€that€would€have€depended€on€the€district€courtððsÐ 7  Ðappreciation€of€the€preclusive€effect€of€the€earlier€federal€settlementÐ 1  Ðon€the€subsequent€state€proceeding.€€But,€in€any€event,€recourse€toÐ +  Ðthe€All€Writs€Act€to€justify€a€removal€was€clearly€unnecessary.Ð %  Ðà 8 àà  àb.€Use€of€an€injunction€in€these€circumstances€is€lessÐ jH  Ðchafing€of€the€federalism€concerns€implicated€in€the€autonomy€andÐ dB Ðdignity€of€state€courts€than€the€outright€ousting€of€state€courtÐ ^< Ðjurisdiction€via€removal.€€See€Hoffman,€supra,€148€òòU.€Pa.€L.€Revóó.Ð X6 Ðat€447,€463„64;€Steinman,€supra,€80€òòB.U.€L.€Revóó.€at€775„76,€816„Ð R0 Ð18.€€Although€a€contrary€position€has€been€asserted€by€the€amicusÐ L* Ðcuriae€of€Petitioners€and€some€other€authorities,€see€òòNAACP,Ð F$ ÐMinneapolis€Branch€v.€Metro.€Councilóó,€125€F.3d€1171,€1174Ð @ Ð(8th€Cir.€1997);€PLAC€Amicus€Br.€23„26,€this€cannot€be€seriouslyÐ :  Ðcountenanced.€€Removal€divests€the€jurisdiction€of€a€state€court,€andÐ 4! Ðprevents€it€from€carrying„out€its€adjudicatory€responsibilities€in€toto.€Ð ."  ÐBy€contrast,€an€injunction€addressed€to€the€parties€can€be€narrowlyÐ (# Ðtailored€to€achieve€whatever€preclusive€relief€is€sought.€€The€fact€thatÐ "$ Ðan€injunction€typically€would€be€directed€towards€the€litigants,€andÐ %ú Ðnot€the€state€court€itself,€is€further€consistent€with€the€dignity€interestsÐ &ô Ðenshrined€in€the€Anti„Injunction€Act.€Ð 'î Ðà 8 àMoreover,€Congress€already€has€made€the€determinationÐ U(3 Ðthat€injunctions€of€state€court€proceedings€(consistent€with€the€Anti„Ð "  ÐInjunction€Act)€are€to€be€preferred€to€removals.€€When€the€Anti„Ð  ú ÐInjunction€Act€was€amended€in€1948€in€reaction€toòò€Toucey€v.€NewÐ  ô ÐYork€Life€Ins.€Co.óó,€314€U.S.€118€(1941),€see€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2283Ð î Ð(revisersðð€note),€it€was€precisely€with€the€purpose€of€allowing€federalÐ  è Ðcourts€to€protect€the€res€judicata€effects€of€their€judgments.€€SeeÐ â ÐòòAtlantic€Coast€Line€R.R.óó,€398€U.S.€at€286„87;€Steinman,€supra,€80Ð þÜ ÐòòB.U.€L.€Revóó.€at€781„82.€€Congress€could€have€amended€theÐ øÖ Ðremoval€statute€to€achieve€this€same€result,€but€it€did€not,€making€theÐ òÐ Ðchoice€that€injunctions€were€a€superior€avenue€of€relief€thanÐ ìÊ  Ðremovals.€€This€Court€should€not€lightly€depart€from€CongressððsÐ æÄ  Ðdetermination€in€that€respect.Рྠ Ðà 8 à2.€€Preferably,€state€courts€should€be€permitted€to€resolveÐ %  Ðfor€themselves€issues€of€the€preclusive€effect€of€previous€federalÐ ý  Ðjudgments.€€This€Court€has€made€clear€that€absent€the€application€ofÐ ÷  Ðthe€relitigation€exception€to€the€Anti„Injunction€Act,€federal€courtsÐ ñ Ðshould€allow€state€court€proceedings€on€the€preclusive€effect€ofÐ  ë Ðfederal€judgments€to€run€their€course,€including€the€ultimate€reviewingÐ å Ðpower€of€this€Court.€€See€òòAmalgamated€Clothing€Workers€of€Am.Ð ß Ðv.€Richman€Bros.€Co.óó,€348€U.S.€511,€520„21€(1955);€òòAtlanticÐ ûÙ ÐCoast€Line€R.R.óó,€398€U.S.€at€297€(ð ðAny€doubts€as€to€the€proprietyÐ õÓ Ðof€a€federal€injunction€against€state€court€proceedings€should€beÐ ïÍ Ðresolved€in€favor€of€permitting€the€state€courts€to€proceed€in€anÐ é Ç Ðorderly€fashion€to€finally€determine€the€controversy.ðð);€òòChick€KamÐ ã!Á ÐChooóó,€486€U.S.€at€149„50€(ð ðwhen€a€state€proceeding€presents€aÐ Ý"» Ðfederal€issue,€even€a€pre„emption€issue,€the€proper€course€is€to€seekÐ ×#µ Ðresolution€of€that€issue€by€the€state€courtðð).Ð Ñ$¯ Ðà 8 àIn€òòParsons€Steelóó,€this€Court€was€adamant€that€ð ð[c]hallengesÐ &ô Ðto€the€correctness€of€a€state€courtððs€determination€as€to€theÐ 'î Ðconclusive€effect€of€a€federal€judgment€must€be€pursued€by€way€ofÐ  (è Ðappeal€through€the€state„court€system€and€certiorari€from€thisÐ )â ÐCourt.ðð€€474€U.S.€at€525.€€In€any€event,€ð ð[s]tate€courts€are€boundÐ "  Ðto€apply€federal€rules€in€determining€the€preclusive€effect€of€federal„Ð  ú Ðcourt€decisions€on€issues€of€federal€law.ðð€€òòHeck€v.€Humphreyóó,€512Ð  ô ÐU.S.€477,€488€n.9€(1994);€see€also€òòLimbach€v.€Hooven€&€AllisonÐ î ÐCo.óó,€466€U.S.€353,€361„63€(1984).€€Litigants€in€possession€ofÐ  è Ðfavorable,€prior€federal€judgments€should€have€confidence€in€theÐ â Ðability€of€state€courts€to€rule€correctly€on€the€preclusive€effects€ofÐ þÜ Ðthose€earlier€rulings,€and€should€not€seek€to€oust€state€courtÐ øÖ Ðjurisdiction€through€such€a€device€as€removals€under€the€All€WritsÐ òÐ ÐAct.Ð ìÊ  Ðà 8 àDespite€the€contrary€intimation€of€amicus€curiae€ofÐ 1  ÐPetitioners,€PLAC€Amicus€Br.€16„17€n.5,€any€doubts€on€this€scoreÐ +  Ðwere€conclusively€resolved€by€this€Courtððs€recent€decision€in€òòRivetóó,Ð %  Ðwhere,€in€the€context€of€removal€(and€not€an€injunction),€the€CourtÐ ý  Ðindicated€that€ð ð[t]he€defense€of€claim€preclusion,€we€emphasize,€isÐ ÷  Ðproperly€made€in€the€state€proceeding,€subject€to€this€CourtððsÐ ñ Ðultimate€review.ðð€€522€U.S.€at€472.€€Ð  ë Ðà8 8 àð ðIn€sum,€claim€preclusion€by€reason€of€a€priorÐ R0 Ðfederal€judgment€is€a€defensive€plea€that€providesÐ L* Ðno€basis€for€removal€under€ðð€1441(b).€€Such€aÐ F$ Ðdefense€is€properly€made€in€the€state€proceedings,Ð @ Ðand€the€state€courtsðð€disposition€of€it€is€subject€toÐ :  Ðthis€Court's€ultimate€review.€.€.€.€We€note€also€thatÐ 4! Ðunder€the€relitigation€exception€to€theÐ ."  ÐAnti-Injunction€Act,€28€U.S.C.€ðð€2283,€a€federalÐ (# Ðcourt€may€enjoin€state-court€proceedings€ððwhereÐ "$ Ðnecessary€.€.€.€to€protect€or€effectuate€itsÐ %ú Ðjudgments.ðð€Ibid.ðð€€Id.€at€478€&€n.3.Ð&ô8ü!8ü! ÐIn€view€ofòò€Rivetóóððs€clarification€that€removal€is€not€permissible€underÐ ['9 ÐòòMoitieóóððs€ð ðclaim€preclusion€exception,ðð€then€it€should€be€beyondÐ U(3 Ðperadventure€that€the€All€Writs€Act€cannot€provide€a€legitimateÐ "  Ðground€for€removal€based€on€the€preclusive€effect€of€a€prior€federalÐ  ú Ðjudgment.€Ð  ô Ðà 8 àEven€if€an€injunction€is€unavailable,€this€Court€hasÐ [9 Ðstrenuously€held€that€deference€to€state€courts€in€determining€theÐ U3 Ðpreclusive€effect€of€prior€federal€court€judgments€is€preferable€toÐ O- Ðremoval€of€the€case.€€Despite€Petitionersðð€and€their€amiciððs€notableÐ I' Ðlack€of€confidence€in€state€courts€to€determine€correctly€theÐ C! Ðpreclusive€effect€of€a€prior€federal€judgment€or€settlement,€this€CourtÐ = Ðshould€not€succumb€to€speculative€fears€of€untoward€rejections€ofÐ 7  Ðfederal€judgments€by€state€tribunals.€€Seeòò€Ruhrgas€AG€v.Ð 1  ÐMarathon€Oil€Co.óó,€526€U.S.€574,€586€(1999)€(ð ðfederal€and€stateÐ +  Ðcourts€are€complementary€systems€for€administering€justice€in€ourÐ %  ÐNation.€€Cooperation€and€comity,€not€competition€and€conflict,€areÐ ý  Ðessential€to€the€federal€design.ðð).€€In€view€of€the€availability€of€twoÐ ÷  Ðremedial€mechanisms€ð!ð€an€application€under€the€Anti„Injunction€ActÐ ñ Ðand€deference€to€state€court€preclusion€determinations€ð!ð€that€haveÐ  ë Ðbeen€either€statutorily€endorsed,€or€judicially€declared,€to€beÐ å Ðpreferable€to€removal,€it€cannot€be€seriously€maintained€that€removalÐ ß Ðis€a€necessary€proceeding€under€the€All€Writs€Act.€€The€properÐ ûÙ Ðprocedural€course€for€this€case€is,€consistent€with€the€court€ofÐ õÓ Ðappealsðð€disposition,€Pet.€App.€12a;€J.A.€24a,€for€it€to€be€remandedÐ ïÍ Ðto€state€court€for€a€determination€on€the€preclusive€effect€of€the€priorÐ é Ç Ðfederal€settlement€on€any€remaining€state„law€claims.€Ð ã!Á ÐÓ ÍLÓÌà@%šàò òIII.€€ð ðANCILLARY€REMOVAL€JURISDICTION,ððˆÐ "$ Ðà@¯¯%šàPREMISED€ON€THE€AWA€OR€A€PRIOR€FEDERALˆÐ %ú Ðà@rr+šàJUDGMENT,€IS€IMPERMISSIBLE.ó óˆÐ &ô ÐÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£SxÝÔ2º½ÔÚ  ÚAÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 8 àÝ  ÝAncillary€jurisdiction€is€not€properly€before€this€Court.݃3£Sx€x݌Р(è8T$8T$ ÐŒÝ  ÝÐ )â ÐÓ ÍLÓà 8 àIn€addition€to€the€All€Writs€Act,€supplemental€jurisdiction,Ð "  Ðunder€section€1367,€was€asserted€by€Syngenta€as€a€ground€forÐ  ú Ðremoval€jurisdiction€in€its€removal€papers.€€See€J.A.€63a.€€But,€as€theÐ  ô Ðcourt€of€appeals€noted,€supplemental€jurisdiction€obviously€cannotÐ î Ðprovide€the€original€jurisdiction€required€for€removal€under€sectionÐ  è Ð1441.€€See€€Pet.€App.€7a€n.3;€J.A.€19a€n.3.€€As€for€ancillaryÐ â Ðjurisdiction,€the€Eleventh€Circuit€noted€that€ð ðCiba„Geigy€did€not€.€.Ð þÜ Ð.€assert€[it]ðð€and€questioned€whether€ð ðsuch€jurisdiction€existsÐ øÖ Ðindependent€of€ðð€1367.ðð€€Id.€€In€any€event,€the€Eleventh€Circuit€didÐ òÐ Ðð ðnot€address€it€as€a€potential€basisðð€of€removal€jurisdiction.€€Id.€Ð ìÊ  ÐIndeed,€the€question€of€ancillary€jurisdiction€was€not€raised€byÐ æÄ  ÐSyngenta€in€its€Petition€to€this€Court.€€See€Pet.€(i).€€In€fact,€nowhereРྠ Ðin€their€Petition€are€cited€the€key€cases€that€Petitioners€now€relyÐ Ú¸  Ðupon,€see€Pet.€Br.€14„16,€for€their€ancillary€removal€jurisdictionÐ Ô²  Ðargument€„òò€Kokkonen€v.€Guardian€Life€Ins.€Co.€of€Am.óó,€511€U.S.Рά  Ð375€(1994);€andòò€Peacock€v.€Thomasóó,€516€U.S.€349€(1996).€€Ð Ȧ ÐÓ ÍLÓà 8 àThe€suggestion€that€invoking€the€All€Writs€Act€is€tantamountÐ  ë Ðto€raising€ancillary€jurisdiction,€such€as€to€make€it€ð ðfairly€includedððÐ å Ðwithin€Petitionersðð€Question€Presented,€see€S.Ct.€R.€14.1(a);€òòYee€v.Ð ß ÐCity€of€Escondidoóó,€503€U.S.€519,€535„38€(1992),€is€untenable.€Ð ûÙ ÐIndeed,€Petitioners€appear€to€recognize€this€by€the€fact€they€haveÐ õÓ Ðreformulated€their€Question€Presented€in€their€main€brief.€€CompareÐ ïÍ ÐPet.€Br.€(i),€with€Pet€(i).€€Respondent,€like€the€Court,€is€regrettablyÐ é Ç Ðleft€to€speculate€whether€Syngentaððs€invocation€of€ancillaryÐ ã!Á Ðjurisdiction€is€intended€as€an€analytically€distinct€submission€(and€thusÐ Ý"» Ðruns€afoul€of€Rule€14),€or€as€subsidiary€to€its€arguments€based€on€theÐ ×#µ ÐAll€Writs€Act.€€In€one€sense,€however,€this€dispute€may€beÐ Ñ$¯ Ðirrelevant;€ancillary€jurisdiction€cannot€provide€Syngenta€with€theÐ Ë%© Ðmissing€ingredient€needed€to€justify€removal€here.€€€Ð Å&£ ÐÐ  ¿' ÐÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£³ƒÝÔ2º½ÔÚ  ÚBÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 8 àÝ  ÝThe€ancillary€jurisdiction€doctrine€does€not€provide€a€basisÐ "  Ðfor€removal€jurisdiction.݃3£³ƒàƒÝŒÐ ú8T$8T$ ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÓ ÍLÓà 8 à1.€€Although€with€some€understatement€this€Court€hasÐ î Ðobserved€that€ð ð[t]he€doctrine€of€ancillary€jurisdiction€can€hardly€beÐ  è Ðcriticized€for€being€overly€rigid€or€precise,ðð€òòKokkonenóó,€511€U.S.€atÐ â Ð379,€the€broad€contours€of€this€exceptional€aspect€of€federalÐ þÜ Ðprocedure€can€be€readily€discerned,€and€they€clearly€counsel€againstÐ øÖ Ðits€application€to€sanction€removal€of€a€case€to€federal€court€thatÐ òÐ Ðotherwise€would€be€ineligible.€€For€starters,€ancillary€jurisdiction€canÐ ìÊ  Ðproperly€be€asserted€only€for:Ð æÄ  Ðà8 8 àð ðtwo€separate,€though€sometimes€related,€purposes:Ð +  Ð(1)€to€permit€disposition€by€a€single€court€of€claimsÐ %  Ðthat€are,€in€varying€respects€and€degrees,€factuallyÐ ý  Ðinterdependent;€.€.€.€and€(2)€to€enable€a€court€toÐ ÷  Ðfunction€successfully,€that€is,€to€manage€itsÐ ñ Ðproceedings,€vindicate€its€authority,€and€effectuateÐ  ë Ðits€decrees.ðð€€òòóóId.€at€379„80€(citations€omitted).Ðå8ü!8ü! ÐThe€parties€seem€to€agree€that€the€first€prong€ð!ð€ð ðfactual[]Ð L* Ðinterdependen[ce]ðð€ð!ð€is€inapplicable,€as€the€removed€action€is€aÐ F$ Ðsecond,€subsequent€lawsuit.€€Seeòò€Peacockóó,€516€U.S.€at€355€(ð ðIn€aÐ @ Ðsubsequent€lawsuit€involving€claims€with€no€independent€basis€forÐ :  Ðjurisdiction,€a€federal€court€lacks€the€threshold€jurisdictional€powerÐ 4! Ðthat€exists€when€ancillary€claims€are€asserted€in€the€same€proceedingÐ ."  Ðas€the€claims€conferring€federal€jurisdiction.ðð)(citing€òòKokkonenóó,€511Ð (# ÐU.S.€at€380„81;€òòH.C.€Cook€Co.€v.€Beecheróó,€217€U.S.€497,€498„Ð "$ Ð99€(1910)).€€See€also€PLAC€Amicus€Br.€15.Ð %ú Ðà 8 àAs€for€the€second€prong€of€ancillary€enforcementÐ a&? Ðjurisdiction,€typically€once€a€federal€court€dismisses€a€case€pursuantÐ ['9 Ðto€a€settlement,€it€may€not€later€obtain€jurisdiction€to€enforce€theÐ U(3 Ðsettlement€through€ancillary€jurisdiction.€€òòKokkonenóó,€511€U.S.€atÐ "  Ð381.€€Petitioners€argue,€Pet.€Br.€16,€that€this€Court€carved€out€anÐ  ú Ðexception€where€the€district€courtððs€order€of€dismissal€(1)€expresslyÐ  ô Ðretained€jurisdiction€over€the€settlement€agreement€and€(2)Ð î Ðincorporated€the€terms€of€the€settlement.€€See€òòKokkonenóó,€511€U.S.Ð  è Ðat€381€(ð ðIn€that€event,€a€breach€of€the€agreement€would€be€aÐ â Ðviolation€of€the€order,€and€ancillary€jurisdiction€to€enforce€theÐ þÜ Ðagreement€would€therefore€exist.ðð).€€A€retention€of€jurisdiction€didÐ øÖ Ðoccur€here.€J.A.€93a.€€Nevertheless,€the€action€filed€by€RespondentÐ òÐ Ðin€state€court€was€avowedly€not€seeking€to€litigate€the€terms€of€theÐ ìÊ  Ðearlier€federal€settlement.€€See€J.A.€83a„86a,€95a;€Resp.€Br.€App.Ð æÄ  Ð43a„46a.Рྠ Ðà 8 à2.€€a.€€Under€these€conditions,€òòKokkonenóó€cannot€properlyÐ %  Ðbe€read€to€allow€the€removal€of€cases€that€are€otherwise€notÐ ý  Ðremovable€under€section€1441€because€of€a€lack€of€originalÐ ÷  Ðjurisdiction.€€To€begin€with,€the€language€in€òòKokkonenóó€relied€uponÐ ñ Ðby€Petitioners€is€òòdictaóó€ð!ð€the€Court€has€not€contemplated€a€situationÐ  ë Ðwhere€these€factors€were€present€and€did€not€expressly€rule€thatÐ å Ðancillary€jurisdiction€sanctions€removal.€€The€holding€of€òòKokkonenóóÐ ß Ðwas€simply€that€a€district€court€dismissing€a€case€pursuant€to€aÐ ûÙ Ðsettlement€agreement€does€not€retain€ancillary€jurisdiction€to€enforceÐ õÓ Ðthat€agreement€(a€power€which€belongs€to€state€courts).€€See€511Ð ïÍ ÐU.S.€at€381.€€Ironically,€the€Court€advised€in€òòKokkonenóó:Ð é Ç Ðà8 8 àð ð[i]t€is€to€the€holdings€of€our€cases,€rather€than€theirÐ ."  Ðdicta,€that€we€must€attend,€and€we€find€none€ofÐ (# Ðthem€that€has,€for€purposes€of€asserting€otherwiseÐ "$ Ðnonexistent€federal€jurisdiction,€relied€upon€aÐ %ú Ðrelationship€so€tenuous€as€the€breach€of€anÐ &ô Ðagreement€that€produced€the€dismissal€of€an€earlierÐ 'î Ðfederal€suit.ððòòóó€€Id.€at€379.Ð (è8ü!8ü! Ðà 8 àAllowing€ancillary€jurisdiction€to€operate€as€a€judge„madeÐ "  Ðexception€to€the€Congressionally„imposed€requirements€of€removalÐ  ú Ðwould€also€lead€to€the€anomalous€result€that€something€could€beÐ  ô Ðachieved€by€ancillary€jurisdiction€that€could€not€otherwise€be€attainedÐ î Ðby€supplemental€jurisdiction€under€section€1367.€€Courts€haveÐ  è Ðregularly€rejected€section€1441€removal€predicated€on€28€U.S.C.€ððÐ â Ð1367€and€a€previously€pending€federal€suit.€€See,€e.g.,€€òòAhearn€v.Ð þÜ ÐCharter€Township€of€Bloomfieldóó,€100€F.3d€451,€456€(6th€Cir.Ð øÖ Ð1996).€€These€decisions€indicate€that€the€removal€statutes€call€for€anÐ òÐ Ðanalysis€of€the€state€suit€alone€to€determine€whether€it€satisfies€theÐ ìÊ  Ðoriginal€jurisdiction€requirement.€€See€also€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1441(b);Ð æÄ  ÐHoffman,€supra,€148€òòU.€Pa.€L.€Rev.óó€at€404€n.11.Рྠ Ðà 8 àThis€is€also€consistent€with€this€Courtððs€later€ruling€inÐ %  ÐòòPeacockóó€that:€Ð ý  Ðà8 8 àð ða€court€must€have€jurisdiction€over€a€case€orÐ dB Ðcontroversy€before€it€may€assert€jurisdiction€overÐ ^< Ðancillary€claims.€€In€a€subsequent€lawsuit€involvingÐ X6 Ðclaims€with€no€independent€basis€for€jurisdiction,€aÐ R0 Ðfederal€court€lacks€the€threshold€jurisdictionalÐ L* Ðpower€that€exists€when€ancillary€claims€are€assertedÐ F$ Ðin€the€same€proceeding€as€the€claims€conferringÐ @ Ðfederal€jurisdiction.ðð€€516€U.S.€at€355€€(citationsÐ :  Ðomitted).Ð4!8ü!8ü! ÐLikewise,€in€òòRivetóó,€this€Courtððs€remand€of€the€Louisiana€state€caseÐ y"W Ðdemonstrates€that€even€state€court€proceedings€that€appear€toÐ s#Q Ðthreaten€directly€a€prior€federal€judgment€may€not€be€removed€in€theÐ m$K Ðabsence€of€an€independent€basis€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction.€€SeeÐ g%E Ð522€U.S.€at€478.€€AlthoughÔ‡XvíXXXvíÔ€the€jurisdiction€a€federal€court€possessesÐ a&? Ðthat€is€ancillary€to€its€original€jurisdiction€in€a€case€may€be€sufficientÐ ['9 Ðto€support€the€issuance€of€an€injunction,€ancillary€jurisdiction€canÐ U(3 Ðnever€provide€a€basis€for€removal€under€the€All€Writs€Act€of€anÐ "  Ðotherwise€unremovable€case.Ô#†XvíXXXvíùŸ#ԀР ú Ðà 8 àà  àb.€€Even€if€the€dicta€in€òòKokkonen€óóis€somehowÐ a ? Ðcontrolling€here,€ancillary€jurisdiction€still€does€not€support€removalÐ [9 Ðin€this€matter.€€This€case€does€not€involve€an€affirmative€use€ofÐ U3 Ðancillary€jurisdiction€by€a€party€bringing€an€action€to€enforce€aÐ O- Ðsettlement€agreement€in€the€court€that€retained€jurisdiction.€€Instead,Ð I' Ðthe€defendants€in€this€case€are€attempting€to€use€ancillary€jurisdictionÐ C! Ðas€the€basis€for€removal€to€a€court€that€did€not€issue€the€order.€Ð = ÐAccording€to€ðð€1441,€a€party€can€remove€a€case€only€ð ðto€the€districtÐ 7  Ðcourt€of€the€United€States€for€the€district€and€division€embracing€theÐ 1  Ðplace€where€such€action€is€pending.ðð€€28€U.S.C.€ðð€1441(a).€€UnderÐ +  Ðancillary€jurisdiction,€only€the€court€that€issued€the€original€order€ofÐ %  Ðdismissal,€having€explicitly€retained€jurisdiction,€can€later€assumeÐ ý  Ðjurisdiction€over€an€action€to€enforce€the€settlement.€€òòKokkonenóó,Ð ÷  Ð511€U.S.€at€381.€€The€required€transfer€of€the€removed€action,€J.A.Ð ñ Ð65a,€negated€any€conceivable€ancillary€jurisdiction€under€òòKokkonenóó.Ð  ë Ðà 8 àà  àc.€€The€last,€and€most€significant,€reason€that€theÐ R0 Ðancillary€jurisdiction€doctrine€cannot€apply€here€is€that,€like€the€useÐ L* Ðof€the€All€Writs€Act,€it€is€conditioned€upon€necessity.€€The€relevanceÐ F$ Ðof€this€prong€is€conceded€by€Petitioners.€€Pet.€Br.€15.€€ð ðAncillaryÐ @ Ðenforcement€jurisdiction€is,€at€its€core,€a€creature€of€necessity.ðð€Ð :  ÐòòPeacockóó,€516€U.S.€at€359€(citing€òòKokkonenóó,€511€U.S.€at€380;Ð 4! ÐòòRiggs€v.€Johnson€Countyóó,€73€U.S.€(6€Wall.)€166,€187„88€(1867));Ð ."  Ðsee€id.€at€355€(ð ðThe€basis€of€the€doctrine€of€ancillary€jurisdiction€isÐ (# Ðthe€practical€need€ððto€protect€legal€rights€or€effectively€to€resolve€anÐ "$ Ðentire,€logically€entwined€lawsuitðð.ðð€(quoting€òòKrogeróó,€437€U.S.€atÐ %ú Ð377));€see€also€Hoffman,€supra,€148€òòU.€Pa.€L.€Revóó.€at€444„45.€€ItÐ &ô Ðis€the€presence€of€necessity€that€confers€the€ð ðextraordinaryÐ 'î Ðcircumstancesðð€required€to€trigger€the€exercise€of€ancillaryÐ  (è Ðjurisdiction.€€òòPeacockóó,€516€U.S.€at€359.€€The€Court€in€òòPeacockóó,€inÐ )â Ðdenying€ancillary€jurisdiction,€emphasized€the€presence€of€otherÐ "  Ðð ðprocedural€safeguardsðð€that€were€sufficient€for€use€by€a€partyÐ  ú Ðseeking€to€enforce€a€federal€judgment.€€Id.€€Ð  ô Ðà 8 àAs€discussed€above€in€relation€to€the€All€Writs€Act,€supra€atÐ [9 Ð22„29,€ancillary€removal€jurisdiction€is€unnecessary,€as€twoÐ U3 Ðalternatives€exist,€including€deferral€to€state€courts€and€a€proceedingÐ O- Ðunder€the€Anti„Injunction€Actððs€relitigation€exception.€€Even€if,€by€itsÐ I' Ðbroad€terms,€ancillary€jurisdiction€were€notionally€applicable€here,Ð C! Ðits€logical€predicate€of€necessity€and€the€availability€of€other€remedialÐ = Ðmechanisms€would€defeat€its€use.€€Simply€put,€Petitioners€had€noÐ 7  Ðreason€or€necessity€to€seek€an€unauthorized€removal€to€federalÐ 1  Ðcourt.Ð +  Ðà 8 à3.€€The€suggestion€made€by€amicus€curiae€of€Petitioners€toÐ pN  Ðuse€ancillary€jurisdiction€as€some€wide„ranging€and€far„reachingÐ jH  Ðmechanism€to€patrol€the€enforceability€of€federal€settlements€isÐ dB Ðunprecedented.€€Not€only€does€this€proposal€carry€with€it€theÐ ^< Ðlikelihood€of€subverting€the€finely„wrought€balance€between€stateÐ X6 Ðand€federal€court€jurisdiction€as€established€by€Congress€through€theÐ R0 Ðremoval€and€Anti„Injunction€statutes,€it€also€will€make€it€more€likelyÐ L* Ð(not€less)€that€federal€and€state€tribunals€will€be€brought€into€conflict.€Ð F$ ÐAnd€despite€their€reliance€on€òòAmchem€Prods.,€Inc.€v.€Windsoróó,Ð @ Ð521€U.S.€591€(1997),€the€teaching€of€that€case€is€that€this€Court€isÐ :  Ðproperly€cautious€of€suggestions€to€rewrite€statutes€or€the€federalÐ 4! Ðrules€in€order€to€pursue€some€ostensible€goal€of€facilitating€theÐ ."  Ðefficiency€of€multi„state€mass€tort€litigation.€€See€id.€at€620,€628„29.€Ð (# ÐSuch€decisions€and€policy€judgments€are€properly€left€to€Congress.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р"$ ÐIn€any€event,€sanctioning€an€illegitimate€use€of€the€All€Writs€Act€inÐ "  Ðorder€to€permit€ð ðcommon€lawðð€removals€of€cases€that€wouldÐ  ú Ðotherwise€have€to€remain€in€state€court€is€an€untoward€andÐ  ô Ðdangerous€development€that€this€Court€should€roundly€reject.Ð î Ðà 8 àFinally,€accepting€the€possibility€of€using€some€combinationÐ U3 Ðof€ancillary€jurisdiction€and€the€All€Writs€Act€to€allow€statutorilyÐ O- Ðunauthorized€removals€of€cases€would€also€raise€the€specter€of€anÐ I' Ðunconstitutional€expansion€of€the€federal€courtsðð€Article€III€powers.€Ð C! ÐSee€Steinman,€supra,€80€òòB.U.€L.€Rev.óó€at€827„28€(ð ðwhere€anÐ = Ðexercise€of€jurisdiction€is€impermissible€under€the€ordinary€removalÐ 7  Ðstatutes,€and€cannot€be€legitimated€by€reference€to€ancillary€orÐ 1  Ðsupplemental€jurisdiction,€an€assertion€of€jurisdiction€via€a€removalÐ +  Ðpower€teased€out€of€the€All€Writs€Act€could€pose€a€significantÐ %  ÐArticle€III€problem.€.€.€.€[Where€original€jurisdiction€does€not€exist],Ð ý  Ðthe€assertion€of€jurisdiction€over€a€case€via€All€Writs€removal€wouldÐ ÷  Ðnot€merely€stretch€that€statute;€it€would€violate€Article€III.ðð).€€ToÐ ñ Ðfollow€the€path€suggested€by€Petitioners€and€their€amici€would€be€toÐ  ë Ðask€the€Court€to€accomplish,€via€judicial€fiat,€what€it€has€sternlyÐ å Ðforbade€Congress€from€doing.€€See€òòNatððl€Mut.€Ins.€Co.€v.Ð ß ÐTidewater€Transfer€Co.€Inc.óó,€337€U.S.€582€(1949);€òòKline€v.Ð ûÙ ÐBurke€Constr.€Co.óó,€260€U.S.€226,€234€(1922)€(ð ð[Congress]€mayÐ õÓ Ðgive,€withhold€or€restrict€such€jurisdiction€[to€inferior€courts]€at€itsÐ ïÍ Ðdiscretion,€provided€it€be€not€extended€beyond€the€boundaries€fixedÐ é Ç Ðby€the€Constitution.ðð);€òòMarburyóó,€5€U.S.€(1€Cranch)€at€174„75.Ð ã!Á Ðà 8 àNo€recourse€to€plumbing€metaphors€of€the€All€Writs€ActÐ (# Ðand€ancillary€jurisdiction€as€ð ðjurisdictional€caulk€.€.€.€plug[ging]€theÐ "$ Ðcracks€in€federal€jurisdiction,ðð€Pet.€App.€11a;€J.A.€23a,€can€sanctionÐ %ú Ðwhat€would€otherwise€be€an€impermissibly€wide€expansion€of€federalÐ "  Ðjurisdiction€at€the€expense€of€state€courts.€€If€our€system€of€judicialÐ  ú Ðfederalism€means€anything,€it€requires€that€Congress€sets€the€rules€forÐ  ô Ðousting€state€court€jurisdiction€through€removals,€and€that€properÐ î Ðdeference€be€paid€to€the€power€and€authority€of€state€courtsÐ  è Ðcorrectly€to€render€judgment€on€the€enforceability€of€prior€federalÐ â Ðdecrees.€€Any€other€result€would€mean€that€on€the€flimsiest€ofÐ þÜ Ðgrounds,€and€even€with€robust€remedial€alternatives,€parties€canÐ øÖ Ðsecure€removals€of€cases€that€properly€belong€in€state€court.€Ð  òÐ ÐÑ€ Ñò òà@šš8šàó óˆÌà@3šàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ g E ÐÌà 8 àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÐ ñÏ ÐAppeals€for€the€Eleventh€Circuit€should€be€affirmed.Ð ëÉ ÐÌÓ ÍLÓà 8 àà  àà è àRespectfully€submitted,Ð uS ÐÌà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àòòDavid€J.€BedermanóóÐ iG  Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àòòCounsel€of€Recordóó€×ƒ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð cA  Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àòòGambrell€HallÐ ];  Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àAtlanta,€Georgia€30322„2770Ð &  Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ à(404)€727„6822Ð ïÍ  ÐÌà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àóóòòHany€A.€ZohdyóóÐ _ Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àòòOf€Counselóó€Ð {Y Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àòòSuite€JÐ uS Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ à12090€South€Harrellððs€Ferry€RoadÐ > Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àBaton€Rouge,€Louisiana€70816Ð å Ðà 8 àà  àà è àà @ à(225)€293„5300РЮ ÐóóÌà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àòòAttorneys€for€RespondentóóÐ “q ÐÌJune€2002Ô‡XvíXXXvíÔÐ  ‡!e ÐÑ8€víXXdúXXdú8ÑÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÔ‡èºÕ çXXvíÔò òÌÌÔ#†XvíX çèºÕ÷Ç#ÔÔ‡°œß °XXvíÔà@ÐÐ4šàÔ#†XvíX °°œß>È#ÔÔ‡xx‹vXXvíÔAppendixó óÔ#†x/Mvvxx‹‚Ç#ÔÔ#†XvíXvx/M’È#ԈРJê  ÐÌÔ€ ·XXvíÔà@  *šàò òJoint€Appendix€pages€42a„47aó ó