Jacob Bellinsky v. Rachel Zinna Galan, fka Rachel Bellinsky

Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), which provides that removal “shall effect” federal jurisdiction and that state courts “shall proceed no further,” divests state courts of authority to enter custody or relocation orders after a notice of removal is filed and served, rendering post-removal orders void unless and until a federal court remands, as reaffirmed in Acevedo Feliciano.

Whether the Due Process Clause permits a judicial officer to adjudicate parental-rights proceedings while simultaneously defending personal-capacity federal civil-rights claims arising from the same underlying dispute, creating an unwaivable structural conflict under Tumey, Caperton, and Williams. i

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment permits state courts to apply procedural or doctrinal frameworks in parental-rights proceedings that allow preserved jurisdictional and structural due-process objections to go unadjudicated, thereby subjecting the fundamental parental liberty recognized in Troxel v. Granville to diminished constitutional protection in contrast to the protections afforded other fundamental rights, and rendering that liberty insufficiently enforceable as a matter of federal constitutional law. This case warrants review under Supreme Court Rule 10 because lower courts have adopted conflicting approaches to the jurisdictional effect of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), and because the questions presented concern the enforceability of fundamental parental rights and the structural constitutional safeguards required for their adjudication.