Replies

Well, well, well...would you look at this new twist! Defendants further assert that the matter of President Obama’s qualifications for office arises under federal law. In any event, the Court should hold that Plaintiffs’ claims turn on significant federal questions. Defendants offer one other basis for denying remand, that federal constitutional interpretation should preempt any state law claim involving presidential qualifications.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”3 The removal statute, found at 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), provides that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”4 A case may “arise under” federal law where (1) the plaintiff’s cause of action is created by federal law; (2) the well-pleaded state-law claim has as a necessary element a substantial, disputed question of federal law; or (3) the claim pleaded is in fact one of federal law.5 “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”6

Perhaps the Defendants might have known that their case wouldn't pass muster in this State so they forced it into the Federal level to avoid a negative ruling.
The question to ask is...why hasn't this been done before this case is if it's such a significant "federal question"?