Early in our history there was fierce independence on the part of the individual states making up our republic. On the one hand, the states were sovereign governments; on the other, they were each players in a larger national government.
The federal court system was developed initially to deal with disputes between state governments and between citizens of different states (to avoid any “home field advantage”) as well as dealing with cases involving the application of purely federal law. Today’s federal courts typically hear cases involving interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and disputes between citizens of different states were the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
The federal removal statute (28 U.S.C. — 1441) exists to allow a defendant sued in a state court to “remove” that case to federal court if it could have been brought in federal court initially. The original purpose of the removal statute was to give non-local defendants the right to move the case to federal court based upon the belief that the federal courts, operating under the same rules regardless of geographic location, would provide a more neutral forum as compared to a “local” state court.
It could be argued that the removal statute has outlived its purpose in the 21st century in light of the homogenization of our society as a result of improved communication and the availability of information in the media and over the internet. Some have argued that the reasons for creation of the removal statute are no longer valid, but try telling that a New York driver who is sued for personal injuries in a local South Georgia courthouse (or, in fairness, a driver from rural Georgia sued in New York City.) Maybe removal to federal court aint such a bad idea. . .
– Kevin Palmer