Carl Kircher, et al. v. Putnam Funds Trust et al. (547 U.S. 633)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 15, 2006 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 547 U.S. 633 · 126 S. Ct. 2145
- Decided
- June 15, 2006
- Term
- October Term 2005
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Souter
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. Title 28 U. S. C. § 1447(d) limits appellate review of a district court order remanding a ease from federal to state court. The question here is whether an order remanding a case removed under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 is appealable, notwithstanding § 1447(d). We hold it is not. I The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (Reform Act), 109 Stat. 787, targeted “perceived abuses of the class-action vehicle in litigation involving nationally traded securities,” Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, ante, at 81, and put limits on federal securities class actions. But Congress soon discovered that “[r]ather than face the obstacles set in their path by the Reform Act, plaintiffs and their representatives [were] bringing class actions under state law, often in state court,” ante, at 82. To block this bypass of the Reform Act, Congress enacted the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (Act), 112 Stat. 3227; see Dabit, ante, at 81-82. The Act has a preclusion provision and a removal provision: it provides that private state-law “covered” class actions alleging untruth or manipulation in connection with the purchase or sale of a “covered” security may not “be maintained in any State or Federal court,” 112 Stat. 3228 (codified at 15 U. S. C. § 77p(b)), and it…
Excerpt of a 28,296-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.