Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/347

 546US1

136

Unit: $U12

[08-22-08 15:26:08] PAGES PGT: OPIN

MARTIN v. FRANKLIN CAPITAL CORP. Opinion of the Court

We granted certiorari, 544 U. S. 998 (2005), to resolve a conﬂict among the Circuits concerning when attorney’s fees should be awarded under § 1447(c). Compare, e. g., Horn­ buckle v. State Farm Lloyds, 385 F. 3d 538, 541 (CA5 2004) (“Fees should only be awarded if the removing defendant lacked objectively reasonable grounds to believe the removal was legally proper” (internal quotation marks omitted)), with Sirotzky v. New York Stock Exchange, 347 F. 3d 985, 987 (CA7 2003) (“[P]rovided removal was improper, the plaintiff is presumptively entitled to an award of fees”), and Hoﬂer v. Aetna U. S. Healthcare of Cal., Inc., 296 F. 3d 764, 770 (CA9 2002) (afﬁrming fee award even when “the defend­ ant’s position may be fairly supportable” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We hold that, absent unusual circum­ stances, attorney’s fees should not be awarded when the removing party has an objectively reasonable basis for removal. We therefore afﬁrm the judgment of the Tenth Circuit. II The Martins argue that attorney’s fees should be awarded automatically on remand, or that there should at least be a strong presumption in favor of awarding fees. Section 1447(c), however, provides that a remand order “may” re­ quire payment of attorney’s fees—not “shall” or “should.” As Chief Justice Rehnquist explained for the Court in Fo­ gerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U. S. 517, 533 (1994), “[t]he word ‘may’ clearly connotes discretion. The automatic awarding of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party would pretermit the exercise of that discretion.” Congress used the word “shall” often enough in § 1447(c)—as when it speciﬁed that removed cases apparently outside federal jurisdiction “shall be remanded”—to dissuade us from the conclusion that it meant “shall” when it used “may” in authorizing an award of fees. The Martins are on somewhat stronger ground in pressing for a presumption in favor of awarding fees. As they ex­