This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps are 26 individual taxpayers who got tax return loans from Beneficial (D), a national bank chartered under the National Bank Act. Ps sued D, and two others, in an Alabama court seeking compensatory and punitive damages on the theory that the bank's interest rates were usurious. The complaint did not refer to any federal law. D removed the case to federal court asserting that the National Bank Act § 85 is the exclusive provision governing the rate of interest that a national bank may lawfully charge. D removed under §1441. Ps motion to remand was denied. The court then certified the question under § 1292(b) to determine whether it had jurisdiction to proceed with the case. A divided panel reversed holding that under the 'well-pleaded complaint' rule, removal is generally not permitted unless the complaint expressly alleges a federal claim and that the narrow exception from that rule known as the 'complete preemption doctrine' did not apply because it could 'find any clear congressional intent to permit removal under §§ 85 and 86.' The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.