Definition
The transfer of a pending action from one court to another court before trial or final determination. The transferring court surrenders jurisdiction; the receiving court takes up the case as if it had originated there.
In its most historically specific and legally consequential sense, removal of causes refers to the transfer of an action from a state court to a federal court, authorized by federal statute, on grounds such as diversity of citizenship, a federal question, or the involvement of a federal officer. The removed case proceeds in federal court as though originally filed there; if the removal was improper, the federal court may remand the action back to the originating state court.
The term encompasses both civil and criminal causes, though civil removal is by far the more common subject of the doctrine and the removal statutes.
---
Common Confusion
"Removal of causes" is sometimes loosely equated with general venue transfer or change of venue. These are distinct concepts. Change of venue moves a case from one court to another within the same court system, typically for convenience or to secure an impartial jury. Removal of causes—in its controlling legal sense—moves a case from one court system to another, most often from a state court system into the federal system. The procedural mechanism, the governing law, and the jurisdictional consequences are entirely different. Researchers should not conflate entries or sources addressing "venue" with those addressing "removal."
---
Core Elements
For a cause to be properly removed from a state court to a federal court under the removal framework, several conditions must be satisfied:
1. A civil action must have been commenced in state court and must remain pending (not finally determined).
2. The removing party must file a petition for removal in the appropriate federal court within the time prescribed by the governing removal statute.
3. A jurisdictional basis for federal court cognizance must exist—historically, diversity of citizenship with a sufficient amount in controversy, or the existence of a federal question.
4. Not all defendants must be citizens of the forum state (the so-called "forum defendant rule" limits removal in diversity cases).
5. The federal court reviews the petition; if the removal is found improper, the court remands the action to the originating state court.
---
Why It Matters in Research
**Statutory evolution is essential context.** The doctrine does not rest on a single, stable statute. It begins with the Judiciary Act of 1789 and develops through a succession of federal removal acts—1833, 1866, 1867, 1875, and the landmark Act of 1887 (as corrected in 1888), which substantially narrowed the scope of federal removal jurisdiction. Any historical source must be read against the specific statute in force at the time being researched. A decision construing the 1875 Act may not accurately state the law under the 1887 Act, and neither may accurately reflect modern practice under the current framework at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441–1455.
**Nomenclature shifts.** Historical sources refer consistently to the United States "circuit court" as the receiving tribunal. That court was abolished in 1911; jurisdiction passed to the United States district courts. Researchers reading pre-1911 materials must adjust accordingly.
**The amount-in-controversy threshold has changed repeatedly.** The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the floor at $500. Subsequent statutes raised it. Modern practice under § 1332 requires more than $75,000. Historical cases turning on whether the threshold was met are not directly comparable across eras.
**Plaintiff's joinder strategy.** Historical sources—including Bouvier's—acknowledge a litigation tactic that remains relevant: a plaintiff who has a legitimate claim against multiple defendants may join them strategically, and if both are properly joined, the plaintiff cannot be penalized for the motive of defeating removal. This is an early articulation of the "fraudulent joinder" doctrine that federal courts continue to develop.
**State-party limitations.** A suit between a state and citizens of another state cannot be removed on the ground of diversity of citizenship. This is a recurring research trap; the standard diversity analysis does not apply when a state is a party.
**The term in non-federal contexts.** Some historical sources and some state-law materials use "removal of causes" to describe transfers within a single state court system—for example, removal from a justice of the peace court to a county court. Researchers must confirm which type of removal a given source addresses.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's (both first and second editions) give the same foundational definition: transfer of a cause from one court to another, with the more particular application being transfer from a state court to a United States circuit court before trial. Both editions truncate the statutory analysis, which is supplied more fully elsewhere.
Rapalje & Lawrence identify the operative statutory authority as the United States Revised Statutes §§ 639–647 and direct researchers to Dillon's treatise on removal of causes—a reference that remains useful for serious historical work on the pre-1887 framework.
Bouvier's provides the most substantive treatment among the shelf sources. It traces the legislative history from the Judiciary Act of 1789 through the Act of 1887 and makes two important points that the other dictionaries omit: first, that decisions under earlier acts generally remain applicable under later acts except where the later act altered the governing rule; second, that corporations organized under acts of Congress may remove to federal court. Bouvier's also flags the state-party limitation and the joinder-to-defeat-removal issue with case support.
None of the historical shelf sources reflect post-1911 practice or the modern statutory framework. They are reliable for understanding the doctrine's development and for reading pre-twentieth-century materials; they should not be treated as statements of current law.
---
Jurisdictional Note
Removal of causes in the federal-court sense is a creature of federal law and applies uniformly as a procedural matter, but the substance of what constitutes a removable claim turns on federal jurisdictional categories (diversity, federal question, etc.) that have their own extensive doctrine. Some states have analogous internal removal mechanisms—particularly for cases originating in courts of limited jurisdiction—governed entirely by state procedural rules, which vary significantly.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Note: The Law Mind Encyclopedia entries flagged as matches address executive removal power and causation in tort and criminal law—distinct doctrines sharing the word "removal" or "cause." Neither is directly relevant to removal of causes as a procedural concept. No encyclopedia cross-reference applies to this entry.
---