In the case of Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a foreign national facing criminal charges in the United States cannot appeal civil suits related to those charges until after their criminal trial has concluded. The defendant, Jacques Van Cauwenberghe was extradited from Belgium to face fraud and racketeering charges in California for his role as an officer of a Belgian corporation involved in a real estate development project there. While awaiting trial on these charges, he was also sued by investors who claimed they were defrauded by him and his company's actions. He sought to have this civil suit dismissed or stayed pending resolution of his criminal case but both lower courts denied this request leading him to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court which upheld these decisions stating that appeals courts do not have jurisdiction over such pretrial matters.

In the dissenting opinion for Van Cauwenbergh v. Biard, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to deny jurisdiction was too narrow and restrictive. He contended that a broader interpretation of "civil action" under § 1441(d) would better serve Congress' intent in enacting the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). According to him, this act aimed at providing foreign states with an option to remove any civil action from state court to federal court. The term 'any', he believed, should be interpreted broadly enough to include all types of cases including those involving individual defendants like Van Cauwenberghe who were acting on behalf of a foreign state or entity. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that removal was only possible when it could affect international relations or sovereignty issues directly; instead arguing that FSIA intended for more comprehensive protection for foreign entities involved in U.S legal proceedings.