Definition
Local prejudice is a recognized ground for removing a civil case from a state court to a federal court, based on the existence of bias or community influence that would prevent a fair trial in the state forum. The prejudice may run against the party seeking removal — meaning the local community or judiciary is hostile to that party's interests — or it may operate in favor of the opposing party, giving that party an unfair advantage by virtue of local standing, influence, or sentiment.
The doctrine is rooted in federal removal jurisdiction. Congress recognized early in the republic's history that parties without local connections — particularly out-of-state citizens — might be unable to obtain impartial justice in state courts where their adversaries wielded significant community influence. Local prejudice removal was a statutory remedy for that structural vulnerability.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "Local" refers to something belonging to or associated with a particular place or neighborhood. "Prejudice" means preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience; bias.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): "Local" — of or pertaining to a particular place; not widespread. "Prejudice" — an opinion or judgment formed without due examination; bias; a leaning toward one side.
The ordinary combination of these words — prejudice that is local in origin — maps reasonably well onto the legal meaning, but the legal doctrine is narrower and more procedurally specific. In law, "local prejudice" is not merely generalized bias; it is a formal legal predicate for invoking federal removal jurisdiction, subject to statutory standards and judicial proof requirements. Community sentiment alone rarely suffices.
Common Confusion
Local prejudice is sometimes conflated with the general concept of venue transfer based on pretrial publicity or community bias — the kind of analysis seen in criminal change-of-venue motions. These are distinct. Local prejudice in the civil removal context is a jurisdictional mechanism: it moves a case from a state court system to a federal court system, not merely from one county to another within the same system. The standard of proof and the procedural vehicle differ significantly.
Why It Matters in Research
The practical importance of local prejudice doctrine has contracted substantially since the nineteenth century. Researchers must understand the historical context to make sense of older primary sources.
The primary statutory vehicle — removal based on local prejudice — was enacted in various forms during the Reconstruction era and its aftermath, when Congress was particularly concerned with the ability of federal courts to protect rights that state courts might be unwilling to enforce. Cases from the 1870s through the early twentieth century will reference local prejudice removal as a live and contested doctrine.
The modern federal removal statutes (28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq.) do not preserve a freestanding "local prejudice" ground for removal in the same explicit form. Diversity jurisdiction removal remains, but the specific local-prejudice removal provision (which appeared in earlier versions of the Judicial Code) has a complicated legislative history. Researchers working in pre-1948 materials should be attentive to which statutory version governs.
A secondary trap: the phrase "local influence" appears alongside "local prejudice" in many historical sources and in the Black's entry itself. These were treated as related but potentially distinct concepts — influence suggesting community power operating in favor of the adversary, prejudice suggesting hostility directed at the removing party. Some courts and commentators drew this distinction; others treated them interchangeably. When reading historical cases, note which term the court is using and whether it is applying a unified or bifurcated analysis.
Corpus researchers should also be aware that the doctrine generated significant satellite litigation over what constituted sufficient evidence of local prejudice to justify removal. Affidavits, newspaper accounts, and social standing of parties all featured in this evidentiary record. This gives the doctrine an unusual fact-intensive character in the reported cases.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's and Bouvier's are in full agreement on the core definition, and both cite the same source: a reported federal case at 31 Fed. Rep. 53. This alignment is unsurprising given the relatively narrow, procedural character of the term — there was little doctrinal controversy about what local prejudice meant, only about how it was proved.
What the historical dictionaries do not address: the evolution of the removal statutes over time, the eventual narrowing of explicit local-prejudice removal grounds, or the practical relationship between local prejudice and diversity jurisdiction. Both entries function as brief cross-references rather than developed expositions, pointing readers to REMOVAL and VENUE for elaboration. Researchers should treat these entries as orientation, not analysis.
Jurisdictional Note
Local prejudice as a removal ground is a matter of federal statutory jurisdiction; it is not a doctrine that varies state by state in the traditional sense. However, the doctrine's application was historically sensitive to the specific federal circuit and the social and political conditions of the district in question. Southern federal courts in the post-Reconstruction period, for example, faced recurring local prejudice removal claims in a distinct political environment.