Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish · ¶52

Finally, we disagree with Louisiana's argument that it should prevail on an alternative theory. On Louisiana's view, this case should not turn on the meaning of “relating to” at all. Instead, Louisiana argues, the removal statute requires that the defendant was “acting under” a federal officer in taking the specific actions challenged in the suit. Brief for Respondent State of Louisiana et al. 18, 21. Louisiana does not dispute that Chevron acted under a federal officer while engaged in avgas refning. But, because Chevron did not produce crude oil pursuant to a federal contract, Louisiana reasons that the suit is not against a defendant “acting under” an officer.

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