Document: 500 U.S. 72 111 S.Ct. 1700 114 L.Ed.2d 134 INTERNATIONAL PRIMATE PROTECTION LEAGUE and its Members, et al., Petitionersv.ADMINISTRATORS OF TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND, al. No. 90-89. Argued March 20, 1991. Decided May Petitioners, organizations individuals seeking the humane treatment of animals, filed suit in a Louisiana court to enjoin respondents, Institutes for Behavior Resources (IBR), National Health (NIH), Administrators Tulane Educational Fund (Tulane), from using certain monkeys federally funded medical experiments obtain custody over animals. NIH removed case Federal District Court pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which permits removal when defendant is "[a]ny officer United States or any agency thereof, person acting under him, [in challenging] act color such office. . ." The granted equivalent preliminary injunction barring euthanizing, completing research on, some monkeys. However, Appeals vacated dismissed case, finding that petitioners lacked Article III standing seek protection federal agencies have power remove cases 1442(a)(1). Held: 1. Petitioners challenge case. They suffered an injury—the lost right sue forum their choice—that can be traced NIH's action—the removal. And, if they prevail, injury will redressed because courts lose subject matter jurisdiction remanded. Although ruled monkeys, adverseness required contest supplied by petitioners' desire prosecute claims state court. Pp. 76-78. 2. Section 1442(a)(1) excludes power. 78-87. (a) section's grammar language support view only "officer" either "of States" one agencies. If phrase "or thereof" described separate category entities endowed with power, it would been separated preceding comma same way subsequent "person him" clause set apart. In addition, "acting under" makes little sense immediately words—which should contain antecedent "him"—refer rather than individual. Nor normally as exercising authority "under color" "office." IBR mistakenly contends "agency redundant unless signifies itself necessarily States. was enacted 1948, relationship between independent Government often disputed. Thus, more likely Congress inserted eliminate doubt officers like Tennessee Valley Authority had other 79-82. (b) Also unpersuasive alternative basis Reading refer tortured. Moreover, common usage term "person" does not include sovereign, especially where reading decidedly awkward. And there no 1442(a)(1)'s legislative history argument Congress' intent extend inferred contemporary changes made administrative structure created, selectively waived sovereign immunity of, several 82-84. (c) This construction produce absurd results. could rationally intended removability turn on technicality whether plaintiffs named individual defendants. statute's nine incarnations 1442(a)(1)' 1948 enactment clearly reflect belief even hostile make determination agency's immunity, and, hence, need By contrast, question officers' much complicated, since acted ultra vires fraught difficulty considerable manipulation. concluded needed raise defenses. 84-87. 3. must remanded terms 1447(c), declares district lacks "shall remanded." barriers state-court anticipates are sufficiently render remand futile. law determine deemed indispensable party. ground cannot sued Similarly, able mixed fact resolved first instance this Court. 87-89. 895 F.2d 1056 (CA 5 1990), reversed Syllabus 1 respondents here. Respondent (IBR) private entity owns monkeys.1 now maintains IBR's consent. (Tulane) governing body primate center that, 1986, entered into agreement care sought further experimentation them. based claim relief upon law, including provisions (1) impose criminal sanctions cruelty La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 14:102.1 (1986 Supp.1991); (2) permit societies remove, "stable," animals being subjected "bruised, wounded, crippled, abrased, sick, diseased," 3:2431 (1987); (3) authorize tort damages "[e]very whatever man causes damage another," La.Civ.Code Ann., Art. 2315 (1979 (4) direct "proceed according equity" situations covered "legislation custom," 4 (Supp.1991). See App. Pet. Cert. A-35 A-37. 2 Shortly after filed, authorizes suits then temporary restraining order carrying out announced plan euthanize three remaining process, complete performing surgical procedures. extended beyond 20-day limit, see Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 65(b), accordingly appealed court's action 1292(a)(1), appellate review injunctions. 3 On appeal, argued, inter alia, were entitled turn, argued officials—not NIH—to Fifth Circuit agreed satisfy requirements Constitution standing. It also held Accordingly, (CA5 1990). We certiorari resolve conflict Courts Third Circuits agencies.2 498 ----, 507, 112 520 (1990). conclude not. II confront at outset objection raised our question. argues found lack suit. believe misconceives both doctrine scope lower ruling. Standing simply party's capacity appear Rather, gauged specific common-law, statutory constitutional party presents. "Typically, inquiry requires careful judicial examination complaint's allegations ascertain particular plaintiff adjudication asserted." Allen v. Wright, 468 737, 752, 104 3315, 3325, 82 556 (1984) (emphasis added). Fletcher, Structure Standing, 98 Yale L.J. 221, 229 (1988) (standing "should seen substantive answerable reference provision whose invoked"). 6 well established may violation statute has "injury fairly challenged defendant," Simon Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 26, 41, 96 1917, 1925, 48 450 (1976), "likely requested relief." supra, U.S., 751, S.Ct., 3324. before us, conduct Petitioners' clear, court—the choice. "fairly defendants," directly results redressed" prevail because, improper "case shall 1447(c); infra, Therefore, 7 Nothing Appeals' decision undermines conclusion. below did protest "disruption personal relationships monkeys," F.2d, 1059, "harm 'aesthetic, conservational environmental interests,' " id., 1060, advocates monkeys' interests, 1061. But point suggest bring these interfered Indeed, rejected protect monkeys3 considered proper. Id., 1061-1062. we consider propriety removal, "the resolving context specifically necessary [the concrete] [required standing] lacking." Brief 7, n. 4. disagree. "adverseness" but court.4 A. 8 civil 1442(a)(1).5 us remove. '[T]he starting every involving itself.' Watt Alaska, 451 259, 265, 101 1673, 1677, 68 80 (1981) (citation omitted). trouble concluding To sure, contains words thereof." those designate two grammatical subjects opening (namely, agencies) clause's States." plausible examined isolation rest "We continue recognize important quest [a] word's meaning," Bishop, 412 346, 356, 93 2008, 2015, 36 941 (1973), "[s]tatutory holistic endeavor." Savings Assn. Texas Timbers Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 365, 371, 108 626, 630, 740 (1988). find construed relevant context, grants subject, officer," modified compound prepositional phrase: [of] 9 Several features reading. punctuation. Cf. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 235, 241, 109 1026, 1030, 103 290 (1989) (statute's meaning "mandated" "grammatical structure"). drafters describe employed consistently. That is, it, sets apart clause, additional persons officers. Absent comma, natural anyone who 10 Secondly, follows confirms clause. grant ought Finally, limits exercise "any office" reads very awkwardly prior clauses An sum, interpretation accord structure. 11 tries rescue invoking well-established principle each word given effect. 2A N. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction 46.06 (C. Sands 4th rev. ed. 1984). therefore itself. notes, contention, defined "agency" department, establishment, commission, administration, authority, board bureau corporation proprietary interest." 451. Since modify all listed 451, concludes "officer 16-17. 12 unpersuasive. broad definition favored today. Buckley Valeo, 424 1, 126, 612, 685, 46 659 (1976) (" '[O]fficer States,' used II, 2, cl. refers "appointee significant laws States"). evidence mind companion defining "agency." time thereafter, "Government See, e.g., Pierce States, 314 306, 62 237, 86 L.Ed. 226 (1941) (holding employee "an Department, within 1884); Rainwater 356 590, 78 946, 996 (1958) (resolving among appeals against Commodity Credit Corporation "against department thereof," False Claims Act); McNinch, 595, 950, 1001 (overturning Fourth Circuit's Housing Administration Act). Given uncertain status entities, believed treat a[n] agency" most explanation insertion possessed "officer[s] Cannon University Chicago, 441 677, 698-699, 99 1946, 1958, 60 560 (1979) ("evaluation congressional take account legal context"). event, gives full effect while avoiding linguistic anomalies produced interpretation. B 13 finds him." view, "him" administered directed officer. tortured language. give agencies, expressed so obliquely, referring merely heads. 14 faces hurdle, moreover, arguing agency. As noted, "in usage, 'person' [and] statutes employing [word] ordinarily exclude it." Will Michigan Dept. State Police, 491 58, 64, 2304, 2308, 105 45 omitted; internal quotes brackets original); 73, 2312 (Brennan, J., dissenting). reluctant read mean where, here, "decidedly awkward." 2308. 15 Nevertheless, "there hard fast rule exclusion" Cooper Corp., 312 600, 604-605, 61 742, 743-744, 85 1071 (1941), conventional disregarded "[t]he purpose, matter, history, [or] executive indicate intent, use term, nation law." 605, 744 (footnote present 16 During years created authorized "sue sued" own names courts. selective waivers gave reason argues, none early involved major departments Government,6 agree prompted change policy. persuasive actually revised 1948. concedes versions statute, extending far back 1815, limited subset 21-23, 18; Willingham Morgan, 395 402, 405-406, 89 1813, 1815-1816, 23 396 (1969). revising text, House Committee Report offered comment explain change: "The subsection apply employees thereof. [The predecessor provision] revenue engaged enforcement laws." H.R.Rep. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A134 (1947). revision admits, express clear purpose 21. At best, report ambiguous point. insufficient overcome presumption designating awkwardness Accord, Mesa California, 121, 136, 959, 968, ("[s]ection 1442(a) seek[s] do nothing defendant"). C 17 finally, literal reject produces Public Citizen Department Justice, 440, 454, 2558, 2566, 377 (court look plain "compel odd result"). points denied lawsuit mere 18 think distinction. already 100 expressly conferred defendants earlier results; indeed, acknowledges "[i]n drafting provisions, referred they, ones courts." 23. sued, course, consented shielded immunity. Larson Domestic & Foreign Commerce 337 682, 693, 69 1457, 1463, 1628 (1949) ("suit [federal action] brought consented"); S. Breyer R. Stewart, Administrative Law Regulatory Policy 1018 (2d 1985) (same). fact, however, prevented erroneously naming—as named—an trusted dismiss defendant. words, straightforward court, interest, unlikely disregard law. 19 complicated. Such hinged crucial nominally addressed [was] sovereign." 687, 1460 Often examining officer's actions exceeded powers delegated him. 689-690, 1461-1462. Determining Jaffe, Suits Against Governments Officers: Sovereign Immunity, 77 Harv.L.Rev. 20 (1963) ("The always allowed be"); 29-39 (discussing seeming inconsistencies Court's resolution question); Davis, Suing Falsely Pretending Sue Officer, 29 U.Chi.L.Rev. 435 (1962). complexities, decide officers, 405, 1815 ("Obviously, attempt interference courts"). situation different what obtained pre-1948 statutes. defense precisely amenable immunity.7 irrational safely entrusted judge. remaining, then, distinction initially drew continued rational statute. agencies,8 83, 6, fatal inconsistency few agencies' defenses (i.e., aside immunity) adjudicated A treating differently remained: manipulable complexities determining forum. 407, 1816 ("[O]ne reasons validity official tried court"); Arizona Manypenny, 232, 242, 1657, 1664-65, 58 (1981). discard current IV 21 Having 1447(c) Title provides "[i]f final judgment appears [over court], original 4, deprives obliges 1447(c). Brewer Urban Development, 508 F.Supp. 72, 74 (SD Ohio 1980). 22 Notwithstanding asks affirm dismissal thus required, remand, retain (in dismissed, court) substitute (who presumably 1442(a)(1)). Alternatively, proceed without defendant, since, caring Tr. Oral Arg. 30, 33. Obviously, events occur, futility exception Maine Interdependent Neighborhoods Commissioner, Human Services, 876 1051 (CA1 1989) (hereinafter M.A.I.N.). 39. reliance M.A.I.N. misplaced. 1441(b) standing.9 invoked justify dismissing remanding overruled First Circuit, factual similarities result supports 24 purported grounds plaintiff's standing, Commissioner's declared (following remand) his Secretary Services (HHS), ability HHS (a third-party defendant) anticipated begin with, defeat Commissioner "act [federal] office," prerequisite doubted 1054-1055. 25 Similar uncertainties preclude Whether correct turns decline speculate proper result. Director Court, least appropriate record. note, which, face, discretion action." 1054. lacking, reverse instructions Civil Parish Orleans, Louisiana. 26 ordered. 27 Justice SCALIA took part conducted testing regain limbs nerves severed. carried funds facilities Silver Spring, Maryland. 1981, Maryland police seized arrested scientist supervising charges While pending, arrangement continues day, although state's scientist's favor expired. After prosecution terminated, moved 1056, 1057-1058, Lovell Manufacturing Export-Import Bank 843 725, 733 (CA3 1988) (only erred applying III's us. infra. dispute surrounding moot. improper, plainly apply. Our leave open require meet respect state-law exercises pendent jurisdiction. (basis "arises law). 1664, ("[I]nvocation purely derivative form jurisdiction, neither enlarging nor contracting rights parties" omitted)); 17, 1665, ("This instructive exist loses removal"). pertinent part: "(a) commenced following them division embracing place wherein pending: "(1) Any office right, title claimed Act apprehension punishment criminals collection revenue." Agencies included Crop Insurance Corporation, 52 Stat. 73 (1938); Farmers Home 50 522, 527 (1937); Reconstruction Finance 47 5, (1932). concerned protection. (1989). FHA Burr, 309 245, 488, 490-91, 84 724 (1940) (agencies presumed fully unless, types suits, contrary intent). Because (original removal) (federal removal), application appropriate. supra.

Category: 8