Opinion ID: 751919
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Does the Federal Officer Removal Statute Apply?

Text: 9 The defendants removed this case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(3), the section of the federal officer removal statute applicable to federal court officers. Jefferson County contends that this case does not fall within the ambit of the statute, and that removal of the case to federal court was therefore improper. 3 As no other circumstances exist that would support federal court jurisdiction, improper removal would mandate dismissal. Thus, our first inquiry is to determine whether § 1442 applies. 10 Unlike the general removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1441), § 1442 is a jurisdictional grant that empowers federal courts to hear cases involving federal officers where jurisdiction otherwise would not exist. See Loftin v. Rush, 767 F.2d 800, 804 (11th Cir.1985). It reads in pertinent part: 11 (a) A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a State court against any of the following persons may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: 12 .... 13 (3) Any officer of the courts of the United States, for any Act under color of office or in the performance of his duties; 14 28 U.S.C.A. § 1442(a)(3) (1994 & Supp.1997). The judges are officer[s] of the courts of the United States, but removal of an action under this section requires the satisfaction of two additional requirements: (1) the defendant must establish a causal connection between what the officer has done under asserted official authority and the action against him, Maryland v. Soper, 270 U.S. 9, 33, 46 S.Ct. 185, 190, 70 L.Ed. 449 (1926); and (2) the defendant must advance a colorable defense arising out of [his] duty to enforce federal law, Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 133, 109 S.Ct. 959, 966-67, 103 L.Ed.2d 99 (1989); accord Magnin v. Teledyne Continental Motors, 91 F.3d 1424, 1427-28 (11th Cir.1996). Thus, under the statute federal officers facing state law claims against them arising out of their duties may remove their cases to federal court if they advance a colorable federal defense. See Arizona v. Manypenny, 451 U.S. 232, 241-42, 101 S.Ct. 1657, 1664, 68 L.Ed.2d 58 (1981). Jefferson County argues that the judges have not satisfied either requirement. 15 We agree with the district court that the plain language of § 1442 is sufficiently broad to encompass this case. The Jefferson County ordinance at issue makes it unlawful for any person to engage in ... any ... occupation ... without paying license fees to the County. Jefferson County, Ala., Ordinance No. 1120, § 2 (Sept. 29, 1987). Under official authority, Judges Acker and Clemon have engaged in the occupation of being United States District Judges without paying license fees to the County, and as a result the county has sued them. There is a direct causal connection between the judges' acts under official authority and the action against them. 16 As for the second requirement, Jefferson County in effect urges us to reconsider our decision on the merits, contending that the judges do not have immunity from the tax and therefore have not advanced a colorable defense for their refusal to pay. However, § 1442 does not require the resolution of, or even a detailed inquiry into, the merits of the federal defense advanced. One of the primary purposes of § 1442 is to allow officials to have the validity of their federal defenses determined in federal court. See Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 89 S.Ct. 1813, 23 L.Ed.2d 396 (1969). For removal to be proper under § 1442, [the federal defense alleged] need only be plausible; its ultimate validity is not to be determined at the time of removal. Magnin, 91 F.3d at 1427. At the time of removal the judges' immunity defense was at least plausible, a conclusion supported by both the district court's grant of summary judgment for the judges and this court's subsequent affirmance. We hold that the federal officer removal statute is sufficiently broad to permit removal of this case. 17