Some say so-called snap removals—where defendants remove cases to federal court even before they have been served—are “unsavory” and “gamesmanship,” but others say they are a way of combating “litigation tourism.”

Now, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the practice is fair game.

The federal appeals court, which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, last week determined that the controversial practice, which typically involves a defendant removing a case from state to federal court before it has been officially served, falls within the plain meaning of the law. According to attorneys familiar with the subject, the ruling is the strongest appeals court endorsement of the practice, which has caused splits among district courts across the country.