Opinion ID: 4533545
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Cromars’ Motion to Remand

Text: The Cromars first contend the case was improperly removed to federal court and should have been remanded to state court. The United States removed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which authorizes removal of a state-court action against the United States or federal officers for acts “under color of such office or on account of any . . . authority claimed under any Act of Congress for . . . the collection 4 of the revenue.” This “right of removal is absolute for conduct performed under the color of federal office.” Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 234 (1981). The Cromars’ complaint repeatedly alleged the Defendants acted “under color of law” and “color of office.” R. Vol. 1 at 21-22. However, they insist they only raised state-law claims and that removal, therefore, was improper under § 1441(a). The district court, though, properly noted the case was removed under § 1442(a)(1) and that removability under that statute, unlike § 1441(a), does not hinge on “‘whether the suit could originally have been brought in a federal court.’” Id. at 236 (quoting Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 406 (1969)).5 Instead, “suits against federal officers may be removed despite the nonfederal cast of the complaint; the federal-question element is met if the defense depends on federal law.” Jefferson Cty. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 431 (1999) (emphasis added). This statute “cover[s] all cases where federal officers can raise a colorable defense arising out of their duty to enforce federal law.” Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 133 (1989). The Defendants plainly had a colorable defense with sovereign immunity, which resulted in the dismissal of the action. And § 1442(a)(1) was intended to protect just such a defense. See Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1484 (10th Cir. 5 The court also found the Cromars’ characterization of their complaint as only implicating state law to be “specious.” R. Vol. 1 at 236 n.4. Notwithstanding their assertion that they “took care to avoid any federal questions,” Aplt. Reply Br. at 21, the complaint unequivocally alleged violations of federal statutes and the federal constitution, including “Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4; and Article I, Section 8[,] Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution; and . . . the 4th Amendment; the 5th Amendment; the 7th Amendment; and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” R. Vol. 1 at 10-11. 5 1990) (“The primary purpose for the removal statute is to assure that defenses of official immunity applicable to federal officers are litigated in federal court.”). Although the Cromars contest the validity of sovereign immunity, the doctrine’s legitimacy is long beyond dispute. See id. at 1473 (“[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity, as embodied in the common law[,] . . . is constitutional.”). See generally Nichols v. United States, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 122, 126 (1868) (“Every government has an inherent right to protect itself against suits, and if, in the liberality of legislation, they are permitted, it is only on such terms and conditions as are prescribed by statute. The principle is fundamental, applies to every sovereign power, and but for the protection which it affords, the government would be unable to perform the various duties for which it was created. It would be impossible for it to collect revenue for its support, without infinite embarrassments and delays, if it was subject to civil processes the same as a private person.”). Removal was proper under § 1442(a)(1). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the Cromars’ motion to remand.6 6 Plaintiffs also contend removal was improper on the grounds that: (1) there was no evidence the individual defendants joined in the removal, Aplt. Reply Br. at 16-17; (2) there was no evidence the United States had standing to represent the individual defendants, id. at 17-18; and (3) the removal notice violated Rule 11 because it lacked a signature from counsel representing the individual defendants, id. at 18-19. Although the district court rejected these arguments, the arguments are waived on appeal because the Cromars raised them for the first time in their reply brief. See Kientz v. Comm’r, 954 F.3d 1277, 1286 n.7 (10th Cir. 2020). 6