## Facts

- Kentucky plaintiffs sued Thermtron Products, Inc. (an Indiana corporation) and its employee (an Indiana citizen) in Kentucky state court for damages from an automobile accident.
- Defendants removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1446 based on diversity jurisdiction.
- The district judge acknowledged that removal was proper and that the federal court had jurisdiction.
- The district judge nonetheless remanded the case to state court solely because a congested federal docket would delay trial.
- Defendants sought mandamus or prohibition in the Sixth Circuit to vacate the remand order.
- The Sixth Circuit denied relief, concluding that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) barred review of the remand order “on appeal or otherwise.”
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court may remand a properly removed case within its jurisdiction solely due to docket congestion and anticipated trial delay.
2. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) bars appellate review, including by mandamus, of a remand order entered on grounds not authorized by § 1447(c).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed.
- A district court exceeds its statutory authority by remanding a properly removed case for reasons not authorized by § 1447(c), such as docket congestion.
- Section 1447(d), read in conjunction with § 1447(c), does not bar review by mandamus of a remand order based on non-§ 1447(c) grounds.
- Mandamus is an appropriate remedy to require the district court to exercise the jurisdiction conferred by the removal statutes.

## Legal Principles

- A district court may remand a removed case only on the grounds specified in § 1447(c) (at the time: removal “improvidently and without jurisdiction”), not on case-management considerations.
- The review bar in § 1447(d) applies to remand orders issued pursuant to § 1447(c); it does not insulate remands resting on unauthorized, extra-statutory grounds.
- When a district court refuses to exercise properly invoked removal jurisdiction by issuing an unauthorized remand, an appellate court may use mandamus to compel the court to adjudicate the case.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal courts cannot remand properly removed cases due to docket congestion and that § 1447(d) does not preclude mandamus review of remand orders that exceed the authority granted by § 1447(c).


Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976)