Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons

Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureRemovalFederal Question JurisdictionSupplemental Jurisdiction28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)28 U.S.C. § 133128 U.S.C. § 1367(a)removal

Facts

ICS owned two properties in Chicago that were included in a landmark district designated under the city's Landmarks Ordinance. After contracting to redevelop the properties, ICS sought permits to demolish most of the structures, but the Chicago Landmarks Commission denied the applications and later denied hardship-based reapplications. ICS then filed state-court actions for judicial review under the Illinois Administrative Review Law. Those complaints included facial and as-applied federal constitutional challenges, state constitutional claims, and requests for administrative review of the Commission's decisions.

Issue

Whether a case filed in state court seeking judicial review of local administrative decisions may be removed to federal district court when the complaint includes federal constitutional claims and also includes state-law claims for on-the-record administrative review. More specifically, whether the presence of deferential state administrative-review claims defeats removal or supplemental jurisdiction.

Rule

If a well-pleaded complaint raises federal claims arising under federal law, the action is a civil action within the district court's original jurisdiction for purposes of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Once removed, the district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) over related state-law claims, including claims for on-the-record review of local administrative decisions, so long as those claims form part of the same Article III case or controversy, i.e., derive from a common nucleus of operative fact.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Patel owns a warehouse in Cleveland, Ohio. After the Cleveland Heritage Review Board denied her demolition permit, she filed in Ohio state court a petition for administrative review under state law alleging that the board misapplied local preservation rules and also that the denial violated the Takings Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

If the city removes the action to federal district court, is removal proper?

Explanation. Removal is proper when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint raises claims arising under federal law. Federal constitutional claims qualify even if asserted through a state-created cause of action. Once those claims supply original jurisdiction, the district court may hear related state-law administrative-review claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) if they form part of the same case or controversy by deriving from a common nucleus of operative fact.