Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish · ¶11

(d) The Court also disagrees with Louisiana's argument that the removal statute requires that the defendant was “acting under” a federal officer in taking the specific actions challenged in the suit. This theory is not consistent with the statutory text, which permits removal of suits against officers or their agents for acts that were not done under color of their offices, so long as the suits “relat[e] to” such acts. Louisiana's interpretation would leave the “relating to” requirement with little, if any, independent function, impermissibly confating the “acting under” and “for or relating to” elements of the federal officer removal test. P. 15. 103 F. 4th 324, vacated and remanded. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Jackson, J., fled an opinion concurring in the judgment, post,…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.