Opinion ID: 2807870
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Application of the Elements for Removal

Text: We address each of the four elements in turn.
The Federal Community Defender is a “person” within the meaning of §1442(a)(1). Because the statute does not define “person,” we look to 1 U.S.C. § 1, which defines the term to “include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.” 1 U.S.C. § 1; see also Ruppel, 701 F.3d at 1181. As a non-profit corporation, the Defender Association of 19 Phildelphia falls within this definition. Furthermore, as the Second Circuit has recognized, “the legislative history is devoid of evidence suggesting that Congress intended § 1442 not apply to corporate persons,” and “§ 1442 also lists other non-natural entities, such as the United States and its agencies, which suggests that interpreting ‘person’ to include corporations is consistent with the statutory scheme.” Isaacson v. Dow Chem. Co., 517 F.3d 129, 135-36 (2d Cir. 2008). Consequently, we find that the Defender Association—the umbrella organization and therefore the named party in this case—satisfies the first requirement for removal.
under” a federal officer or agency The Federal Community Defender satisfies the next element because the injuries the Commonwealth complains of are based on the Federal Community Defender’s conduct while it was “acting under” the AO. See Feidt, 153 F.3d at 127. The words “acting under” describe “the triggering relationship between a private entity and a federal officer.” Watson, 551 U.S. at 149. The Supreme Court has stated that “the word ‘under’ must refer to what has been described as a relationship that involves ‘acting in a certain capacity, considered in relation to one holding a superior position or office.’” Id. at 151 (quoting 18 Oxford English Dictionary 948 (2d ed. 1989)). Furthermore, “precedent and statutory purpose make clear that the private person’s ‘acting under’ must involve an effort to assist, or to help carry out, the duties or tasks of the 20 federal superior.” Id. at 152. The Court has stressed that “[t]he words ‘acting under’ are broad, and . . . that the statute must be ‘liberally construed.’” Id. at 147 (quoting Colorado v. Symes, 286 U.S. 510, 517 (1932)). While the Court has not precisely determined “whether and when particular circumstances may enable private contractors to invoke the statute,” id. at 154, it has noted with approval that “lower courts have held that Government contractors fall within the terms of the federal officer removal statute, at least when the relationship between the contractor and the Government is an unusually close one involving detailed regulation, monitoring, or supervision.” Id. at 153. The Supreme Court cited by way of example Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co., 149 F.3d 387, 398-400 (5th Cir. 1998), in which the Fifth Circuit determined that Dow Chemical was “acting under” color of federal office when it manufactured Agent Orange for use in helping to conduct a war pursuant to a contractual agreement with the United States. The Watson Court explained that in Winters and other similar cases, the private contractor acted under a federal officer or agency because the contractors “help[ed] the Government to produce an item that it need[ed].” 551 U.S. at 153. This is because, the “assistance that private contractors provide federal officers goes beyond simple compliance with the law and helps officers fulfill other basic governmental tasks.” Id. For example, in Winters, “Dow Chemical fulfilled the terms of a contractual agreement by providing the Government with a product that it used to help conduct a war. Moreover, at least arguably, Dow performed a job that, in the absence of a contract with a private firm, the Government itself would have had to perform.” Id. at 153-54. 21 The Court contrasted government contractors with other private parties lacking a contractual relationship with the government. See id. It concluded that “compliance (or noncompliance) with federal laws, rules, and regulations does not by itself [bring a party] within the scope of the statutory phrase ‘acting under’ a federal ‘official.’” Id. at 153. The factual scenario in Watson itself is illustrative. In that case, Phillip Morris could not remove a deceptive and unfair business practices suit filed against it based merely on a defense that it complied with Federal Trade Commission regulations governing its advertising. Id. at 156. The Court explained that Congress could not have meant for the statute to sweep so broadly, for if mere compliance with federal law were sufficient, then the meaning of “acting under” could include taxpayers who complete federal tax forms; airline passengers who obey prohibitions on smoking; or federal prisoners who follow the rules and regulations governing their conduct. Id. at 152. These types of relationships do not warrant removal because state court prejudice would not be expected. See id. We adopt the principles outlined in Watson to guide our understanding of whether the Federal Community Defender was “acting under” a federal agency. Cf. Jacks v. Meridian Res. Co., LLC, 701 F.3d 1224, 1231 (8th Cir. 2012) (relying on same); Bennett v. MIS Corp., 607 F.3d 1076, 1086-87 (6th Cir. 2010) (same). The relationship between the Federal Community Defender and the federal government is a sufficiently close one to conclude that the Federal Community Defender was “acting under” a federal agency— the Judicial Conference and its subordinate, the AO—at the time of the complained-of conduct. 22 The Federal Community Defender is a non-profit entity created through the Criminal Justice Act that is delegated the authority to provide representation under the CJA and § 3599. Its “stated purposes must include implementation of the aims and purposes of the CJA.” Guide, Vol. 7A, Ch. 4, § 420.20(a). It also must adopt bylaws consistent with representation under the CJA and a model code of conduct similar to those governing Federal Public Defender Organizations. See § 420.20(a) & (c). Through this relationship, the Federal Community Defender “assists” and helps the AO to “carry out[] the duties or tasks of a federal superior,” which is to implement the CJA and § 3599 through the provision of counsel to federal defendants and indigent federal habeas corpus petitioners. See Watson, 551 U.S. at 152. Unlike the companies in Watson, the Federal Community Defender provides a service the federal government would itself otherwise have to provide. See id. at 154; Isaacson, 517 F.3d at 137 (“Unlike the tobacco companies in Watson, Defendants received delegated authority; they were not simply regulated by federal law.”). Additionally, the nature of the Commonwealth’s complaints pertains to the “triggering relationship” between the Federal Community Defender and the AO, because the Commonwealth targets the manner in which the Federal Community Defender uses its federal money, not another aspect of its representation of clients in state court. See Watson, 551 U.S. at 149. As a condition of receiving federal grant money, the Federal Community Defender must maintain detailed financial records, submit an annual report of activities and expected caseload, and return unexpended balances to the AO. Additionally, the Federal Community Defender is prohibited from commingling CJA funds with its other funds. And “[u]nless otherwise authorized by the AO, 23 no employee of a grantee organization (including the federal defender) may engage in the practice of law outside the scope of his or her official duties with the grantee.” J.A. at 340. The scope of when the Federal Community Defender acts under the AO, whatever its limits, surely extends to whether it sufficiently complies with its obligations under its grant, specifically whether it is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, or is commingling funds in violation of the AO’s directives. The Commonwealth disagrees, contending that the Federal Community Defender must show not only that it “act[ed] under” color of federal office at the time of the complained-of conduct, but also that the Federal Community Defender acted pursuant to a federal duty in engaging in the complained-of conduct. The Commonwealth argues that because the Federal Community Defender cannot state a duty to appear in PCRA proceedings on behalf of its clients, it cannot be “acting under” a federal agency when it does so. Framing the inquiry in this manner essentially collapses the “acting under” inquiry into the requirement that the complained-of conduct be “for, or relating to,” an act under color of federal office. See In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig., 488 F.3d 112, 124-25 (2d Cir. 2007). Even if we were to address these requirements simultaneously, whatever causation inquiry we import could not be narrower than the one Congress has written into the statute. As discussed below, we disagree that the Federal Community Defender is required to allege that the complained-of conduct itself was at the behest of a federal agency. It is sufficient for the “acting under” inquiry that the allegations are directed at the relationship between the Federal Community Defender and the AO. 24 Given these considerations, we conclude that the Federal Community Defender satisfies this requirement.
or relating to” an act under color of federal office We conclude that the Federal Community Defender satisfies the causation element because the Commonwealth’s claims concern acts “for or relating to” the Federal Community Defender’s federal office. Prior to 2011, the proponent of jurisdiction was required to show that it has been sued “for any act under color of [federal] office.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) (2010) (emphasis added).7 In other words, the proponent was required to “show a nexus, a causal connection between the charged conduct and asserted official authority.” Jefferson Cnty. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423, 431 (1999) (quotation marks omitted). For example, in Maryland v. Soper (No. 2), 270 U.S. 36 (1926), the Supreme Court decided that four prohibition agents and their chauffeur could not take advantage of the federal officer removal statute for their state prosecutions for lying under oath to a coroner. According to the agents, what required them to testify in front of the coroner was their discovery of a man who was wounded, and who eventually died, on their way back from investigating an illegal alcohol still. Thus, they claimed that their federal duties were a cause of their allegedly perjurous testimony. Id. at 41. The Court 7 Both before and after the 2011 amendments, however, the statute also permitted the removal of actions brought “on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). 25 determined that this connection was insufficient to justify removal because testifying before the coroner was not part of the agents’ official duties, and those were the acts that the State relied on for prosecution. Id. at 42. The Court acknowledged, however, that the acts need not be “expressly authorized” by a federal statute, so long as the acts complained of are “an inevitable outgrowth of” and “closely interrelated” with the officer’s federal duty. Id. By contrast, the Court found a sufficient causal connection for removal jurisdiction in Acker, 527 U.S. 423. There, two federal district court judges resisted payment of a county’s occupational tax,8 claiming that it violated the “intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine.” Id. at 429. After the State brought a collection action against the judges in state small claims court, the judges removed under § 1442 and asserted that the small claims suits were “for a[n] act under color of office.” Id. at 432. The judges argued that there was a sufficient causal relationship because the ordinance at issue made it unlawful to engage in their federal occupation without paying the tax. Id. For its part, the State argued that the tax was levied against the judges personally, and not on them as judges, so the collection suit was unrelated to their federal office. Id. The Court decided that “[t]o choose between those readings of the Ordinance is to decide the merits of this case,” which it would not do at this stage. Id.; see also id. at 431 (“We . . . do not require the officer virtually to win his case before he can have it removed.”) (quotation marks omitted). The Court concluded that the 8 Defined as “[a]n excise tax imposed for the privilege of carrying on a business, trade, or profession.” TAX, Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). 26 judges had made an adequate threshold showing at this stage to grant federal courts jurisdiction under § 1442 because “[t]he circumstances that gave rise to the tax liability, not just the taxpayers’ refusal to pay, ‘constitute the basis’ for the tax collection lawsuits at issue.” Id. at 433. The tax suits arose out of the judges’ “holding court in the county and receiving income for that activity” and therefore had a sufficient nexus to the judges’ official duties. Id. Thus, before 2011, proponents of removal jurisdiction under § 1442 were required to “demonstrate that the acts for which they [we]re being sued” occurred at least in part “because of what they were asked to do by the Government.” Isaacson, 517 F.3d at 137. In 2011, however, the statute was amended to encompass suits “for or relating to any act under color of [federal] office.” 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) (2011) (emphasis added). Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal appellate court has addressed the significance of the insertion of the words “or relating to” in the statute. However, the Supreme Court has defined the same words in the context of another statute: “The ordinary meaning of the[] words [‘relating to’] is a broad one—‘to stand in some relation; to have bearing or concern; to pertain; refer; to bring into association with or connection with.’” Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 383 (1992) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1158 (5th ed. 1979)); see also Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96-97 & n.16 (1983) (same). Thus, we find that it is sufficient for there to be a “connection” or “association” between the act in question and the federal office. Our understanding comports with the legislative history of the amendment to § 1442(a)(1), which shows that the addition of the words “or relating to” was intended to “broaden the universe of acts that enable Federal officers to remove to Federal court.” H.R. Rep. No. 112-17, 27 pt. 1 (2011), as reprinted in 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 420, 425. In this case, the acts complained of undoubtedly “relate to” acts taken under color of federal office. First, the Federal Community Defender attorneys’ employment with the Federal Community Defender is the very basis of the Commonwealth’s decision to wage these disqualification proceedings against them. The Commonwealth has filed these motions to litigate whether the Federal Community Defender is violating the federal authority granted to it. As the Supreme Court has noted, whether a federal officer defendant has completely stepped outside of the boundaries of its office is for a federal court, not a state court, to answer. See Acker, 527 U.S. at 431-32; Willingham, 395 U.S. at 409 (“If the question raised is whether they were engaged in some kind of ‘frolic of their own’ in relation to respondent, then they should have the opportunity to present their version of the facts to a federal, not a state, court.”). Moreover, the Federal Community Defender’s representation of state prisoners in PCRA proceedings is closely related to its duty to provide effective federal habeas representation. As the Supreme Court has emphasized on numerous occasions, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 significantly increased the extent to which federal habeas relief is contingent on the preservation and effective litigation of claims of error in state court, including state post-conviction proceedings: Under the exhaustion requirement, a habeas petitioner challenging a state conviction must first attempt to present his claim in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). If the state court rejects the claim on procedural grounds, the claim is 28 barred in federal court unless one of the exceptions to the doctrine of Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 82-84, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977), applies. And if the state court denies the claim on the merits, the claim is barred in federal court unless one of the exceptions to § 2254(d) set out in §§ 2254(d)(1) and (2) applies. Section 2254(d) thus complements the exhaustion requirement and the doctrine of procedural bar to ensure that state proceedings are the central process, not just a preliminary step for a later federal habeas proceeding, see id., at 90, 97 S.Ct. 2497. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011). As a result, counsel in PCRA proceedings must be careful to comply with state procedural rules, file within applicable limitations periods, and fully exhaust their clients’ claims in order to secure meaningful habeas review in federal court. The impact PCRA litigation can have on a subsequent federal habeas petition is, of course, one of the reasons the Federal Community Defender represents prisoners in such litigation. This impact is significant enough to convince us that the Federal Community Defender’s actions in PCRA litigation “relate to” its federal duties for purposes of removal jurisdiction.
colorable defenses The final element for removal requires the Federal Community Defender to raise a “colorable federal defense” to the Commonwealth’s claims. Acker, 527 U.S. at 431-32. Since at least 1880, the Supreme Court has required that 29 federal officer removal be allowed if, and only if, “it appears that a Federal question or a claim to a Federal right is raised in the case, and must be decided therein.” Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 126-27 (1989) (quoting Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257, 262 (1880)) (quotation marks and emphasis omitted). This requirement assures that federal courts have Article III jurisdiction over federal officer removal cases. Mesa, 489 U.S. at 136.9 The Commonwealth contends that the federal defense must coincide with an asserted federal duty. Not so. In Acker, for example, the Supreme Court concluded that the