In WLF Victory, Supreme Court Rejects Narrow Reading of Federal-Officer Removal Statute

“Today’s 8-0 ruling honors Congress’s intent to provide federal contractors with a federal forum for disputes over federal projects.”
—Cory L. Andrews, WLF General Counsel & Vice President of Litigation

(Washington, DC)—Today the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that narrowly interpreted the federal-officer removal statute to deny federal contractors access to federal courts. The 8-0 ruling was a victory for WLF, which argued in its amicus brief why that cramped reading contradicts the statute’s text and purpose. Atlantic Legal Foundation joined WLF on the brief.

The case stems from a lawsuit by Louisiana and two parishes seeking to hold oil-and-gas companies liable under state law for World War II-era crude oil production. The Fifth Circuit rejected the defendants’ attempt to remove the case to federal court, ruling that their oil production did not “relate to” their federal contracts for aviation gasoline because those contracts lacked specific directives on production.

Largely tracking arguments WLF advanced in its brief, the Court held that Chevron plausibly alleged a sufficient connection between its challenged WWII-era crude-oil production activities in Louisiana and its federal contracts to refine aviation gasoline for the military. This satisfies the broad “for or relating to” requirement of the federal officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. §1442(a)(1)), allowing removal from state to federal court.