A hypothetical is important for this article. Here we go: In relation to a multi-million dollar contract dispute, a Louisianan sues a Mississippian and a Texan in Texas state court. The Texan, of course, is a home-state or forum defendant. Most 1L law students recognize that the parties' complete diversity and the case's amount in controversy confers "original" or diversity jurisdiction in federal court. But the ambitious law student also is quick to recognize that the defendants' right to removal could be flouted by the "forum-defendant rule," which rule prohibits removal based on diversity jurisdiction if any of the "properly joined and served" defendants is a citizens of the state in which the action was filed.  28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).

A recent Fifth Circuit decision, Texas Brine Company, L.L.C. v. American Arbitration Association, 955 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2020), confirms that the Mississippian in the hypothetical can successfully remove the case to federal court, notwithstanding the presence of a "hometown" or "forum" defendant, through a "snap removal" process. In essence, snap removal is a procedural loophole that capitalizes on the "and served" language in the statute. Snap removal proponents argue that, where diversity jurisdiction exists, the rule's plain text permits removal so long as no forum defendant has been served at the time of removal. In the Texas Brine decision, the Fifth Circuit adopted a textual approach—concluding that the plain meaning of the "properly joined and served" language is clear and unambiguous. As a result, in the example above, a court would allow removal by the Mississippian if he removed the case to federal court before the Texan was served. "Of some importance" to the Fifth Circuit's decision, however, was the fact that the removing party in Texas Brine was a non-forum defendant—meaning the Mississippian removed the case to federal court rather than the Texan forum defendant.