Document: 489 U.S. 121 109 S.Ct. 959 103 L.Ed.2d 99 Kathryn Isabella MESA and Shabbir A. Ebrahim, a/k/a Azam, Petitionersv.CALIFORNIA. No. 87-1206. Argued Dec. 6, 1988. Decided Feb. 21, 1989. Syllabus Petitioner mailtruck drivers, employees of the United States Postal Service, were separately charged in state criminal complaints with traffic violations arising out unrelated incidents while they operating their trucks, arraigned a California Municipal Court. The attorney filed petitions for removal to Federal District Court pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)—which provides civil or prosecution commenced court against "[a]ny officer . ., person acting under him, any act color such office ."—because petitioners federal at time because charges arose from accidents involving that occurred on duty course scope employment. granted petitions. Appeals, after consolidating petitions, issued writ mandamus ordering deny remand prosecutions trial court, holding "federal postal workers may not remove when raise no colorable claim immunity other defense." Held: 1442(a) must be predicated upon averment defense. Pp. 124-139. (a) For almost 125 years, this Court's decisions have understood its predecessor statutes require an averment. test which "[t]here causal connection between what has done asserted official authority prosecution," Maryland v. Soper (No. 1), 270 9, 33, 46 185, 70 L.Ed. 449, did eliminate defense requirement. And since could present them, liberal pleadings sufficient allege permitted Willingham Morgan, 395 402, 405, 89 1813, 1815, 23 396, are inapplicable those prosecutions. 125-134. (b) There is merit Government's argument language "in performance his duties" used 1442(a)(3) permits actions "for mean something besides "under office" provision therefore 1442(a)(1) construed broadly permit brought acts during duties regardless whether raises reason depart long-standing interpretation Congress meant by both preserve pre-existing requirement removal. 134-135. (c) Section pure jurisdictional statute, granting district jurisdiction over cases defendant. section, therefore, cannot independently support Art. III "arising under" jurisdiction. Rather, it raising question officer's petition constitutes law action arises purposes. Adopting view, would requirement, turn substantive foundation unnecessarily grave constitutional problems. need adopt theory "protective jurisdiction" jurisdiction, as Government urges, case there interests protected limiting situations alleged. In issue, hostility interference even been alleged, interest potentially forcing local attorneys choose prosecuting hundreds miles municipality abandoning It hardly consistent "strong judicial policy" proceedings officers thereby impose extraordinary burdens absolutely issue 136-139. 813 F.2d 960, affirmed. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion unanimous BRENNAN, concurring opinion, MARSHALL, joined, post, p. 140. Donald B. Ayer, Sacramento, Cal., petitioners. Kenneth Rosenblatt, respondent. Justice O'CONNOR 1 We decide today Service may, 1442(a)(1), them committed duty. 2 * summer 1985 Mesa Ebrahim employed drivers Santa Clara County, California. incidents, State petitioners, charging misdemeanor-manslaughter driving outside laned roadway her collided killed bicyclist, speeding failure yield police car. San Jose County September 16 October 2, 1985, respectively. set pretrial conference Mesa's November 4, 7, 1985. 3 On 24 Attorney Northern Mesa. alleged should properly removed "the accident defendant was employment Service." Petition Removal Criminal Action ¶ 3, App. 5. See also 10 ("[T]he duty"). responsive motions remand, contending State's removable 1442(a)(1). denied California's remand. 4 thereupon petitioned Appeals Ninth Circuit compelling court. consolidated divided panel held 967 (1987). Accordingly, States' courts. certiorari behalf 486 1021, 108 1993, 100 226 (1988), resolve conflict among Courts concerning proper now affirm. II 5 case, 1442(a), provides: 6 "A following persons division embracing place wherein pending: 7 "(1) Any agency thereof, account right, title claimed Act apprehension punishment criminals collection revenue. 8 "(2) A property holder whose derived officer, where affects validity States. 9 "(3) courts States, duties; "(4) either House Congress, discharge order House." 11 agree capacity "person[s] "officer thereof" within meaning Their disagreement concerns act[s] subsection. largely adopting view taken Third Pennsylvania Newcomer, 618 246 (1980), read "whenever prosecuted manner he performed duties. ." Brief Petitioners 8. California, below, us same phrase some seeking 12 numerous occasions last years we had opportunity examine one long line statutory forebears. 396 (1969), traced "long history" statute origin February 8, Stat. 198, congressional response New England's opposition War 1812, through expansion South Carolina's 1833 threats nullification, further Civil era enforce revenue laws became acute, enactment Judicial Code 1948 took form encompassing all officers. U.S., 405-406, S.Ct., 1815. "The purpose these enactments," concluded, "is hard discern. As said Tennessee Davis, 257, 263, 25 648 (1880), 13 " 'can only agents, If, thus acting, authority, can arrested offense State, yet warranted possess, if general government powerless interfere once protection,—if protection left court,—the operations will members.' Id. 406, 14 involved murder collector who that, seizing illegal distillery laws, "he assaulted fired number armed men, defence life returned fire," killing assailants. Id., 261. Davis sought challenged constitutionality statute. Rev.Stat. 643. Strong framed presented thus: 15 "Has Constitution conferred power authorize removal, indictment crime before trial, appears right raised decided therein? 262 (emphasis added). Strong's emphasis presence unifies entire opinion. He thought impossible so weaken prevent protecting itself unfriendly legislation "may affix penalties immediate direction national government, obedience [or] laws." 263. 17 Despite references argues justified solely grounds self-defense Davis' actually purely law, being common 'justification' applicable crimes 20, n. 7. Thus, concludes, despite much contrary fact approved demonstrates necessary effect 18 What fails note successful legal "self-defense" depends truth two distinct elements: was, sense, self-defense, justified, is, circumstances. first element depended law: seize distillery? If merely thief attempting steal assailants' property, returning fire simply pretermitting justification. Proof provided predicate re Neagle, 135 1, 94, 658, 679, 34 55 (1890) (Lamar, dissenting) ("In [t]he homicide, petitioner prosecuted, him executing duties, pursuance express requirements own life, party offering unlawful resistance") added); 2), 36, 42, 192, 193, 459 (1926) ("Thus removals enforcement prohibition include threatened enforcing law. Such really part exercise authority. They make effective"). conclusion makes clear, upheld precisely defense: 19 "It ought, considered settled powers offences circuit ample case." 271 20 Prior Mayor Cooper, Wall. 247, 851 (1868), again focused Cooper sued mayor aldermen Nashville, Tennessee, trespasses real estate transportation conversion chattels occurring shortly War. city officials suit Mar. 1863, ch. 81, 5, 756. contended trespasses, Nashville appointees Military Governor Union general. unconstitutional. upholding statute's constitutionality, observed: "Nor objection questions character. latter exist, single ingredient mass, sufficient. That decisive subject jurisdiction." Wall., 252 purposes required law; "[t]he authorized made subject. involves wholly different inquiries. whatever 254. 21 Although always spoken clarity early evince, departed allegation Cleveland, C., C. & I.R. Co. McClung, 119 454, 262, 30 465 (1886), stands proposition prerequisite McClung railroad recovery lien, alleging customs 175 notify carrier claiming lien delivering merchandise ultimate consignees paid collector. setting up obvious question—the statute—the collector's absence federally created unavailing. Apart based clearly determination To assert does certain obligations existence forms basis rely just way asserting shield suits. Both equally defensive 22 later Gay Ruff, 292 25, 54 608, 78 1099 (1934), points more definitively our continuing understanding but facts remarkably similar complaint Ruff Gay, receiver appointed Court, wrongful death son result negligent operation train receiver. 33 Code, Aug. 23, 1916, 399, 39 532, then-current version Much Brandeis' devoted determining receivers "officer[s] States" recent amendment officer." Cf. 1442(a)(3). examination history Brandeis concluded "it applied defending caused appear doing than [revenue] orders [of Congress]." 612. Applying officers, observed justify judgment Nor otherwise question. Its relation 34, This, harmony trend providing character litigant alone confer court," id., 35, 613, enough sustain receiver's here sued, although appointing engaged assume rest cause operated." 39, 615. Finally, relies 449 (1926), decision rejected This agents officers' averments themselves "not sufficiently informing specific unlike prior adjudicated, able neither nor knowledge charged. come wounded dying man vicinity still destroyed unsuccessfully giving chase bootleggers. While rejecting agents' informing," ibid., Chief Taft Maryland's contention successfully "by admitting prosecuted." 32, 611. enunciated test: "There prosecution. offense, arisen direct exclude possibility conduct But very admits constitute basis, though mistaken false, prosecution." Unlike Government, do understand 1) eliminated unique prosecution, markedly today, pleaded traverse assumed situation arise might warrant Under circumstances, suggested careful pleading, demonstrating close duty, adequately replace pleading permissible Constitution. 26 Similarly, case. Willingham, prison tort injuries allegedly received imprisoned. grounds. Barr Matteo, 360 564, 79 1335, 1434 (1959); Howard Lyons, 593, 597, 1331, 1334, 1454 (1959) (the "must judged standards, formulated legislative Congress"); see Westfall Erwin, 484 292, 295, 580, 583, 98 619 (1988). central broad cover fact, most important reasons tried court." 406-407, 1816. 27 adverted substitute defense, means delimiting establishing nature. 409, 1817 shown contact respondent inside penitentiary, performing believe demonstrated 'causal connection.' consists, enough, undisputed employment, relevant times"). suggestion, decline divorce transform into independent them. Imbler Pachtman, 424 429, 96 984, 994, 47 128 (1976) ("This never policy considerations compel governmental beyond reach law"). today. sum, unbroken extending back nearly century quarter various incarnations B 29 face decisions, defends without assertion plain substantial permitting universal critical appeared July 13, 1866, 184, 67, 171, remained every interpreted 1880. Nevertheless, contends bear weight specialized grants clause subsection (1) subsections (2)-(4) "residue" pre-1948, limited entirely encompassed (1). P. Bator, D. Meltzer, Mishkin, Shapiro, Hart Wechsler's System 1057 (3d ed. 1988). however, derives consideration (3)—"[a]ny duties"—support employee 26. (3). Nonetheless, hypothesis, disjunction (3) Therefore, controlling 31 added 33—the superseded enactment—by August 532. explicitly First, recognized 1916 'to extend provisions section uniformly cases, given Congress.' 38, 614, quoting H.R.Rep. 776, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., (1916). Second, expression led enactment, intention repeal existing long-existing restricting 37, 614. Third, discussed earlier, noted "existing law" "restrict[ed] 33-35, 612-13, 615; supra, 130-131. office," expressions Again, Congress' intent enacting C 32 serious doubt whether, "expand[ed] bounds established Constitution." Verlinden B.V. Central Bank Nigeria, 461 480, 491, 1962, 76 81 (1983). Verlinden, distinction "jurisdictional statutes" [an] arises, purposes," seek "to nothing grant particular class cases" jurisdiction.1 496, 1970, citing Propeller Genesee Fitzhugh, How. 443, 451-543, 1058 (1852); Mossman Higginson, Dall. 12, 720 (1800). Foreign Sovereign Immunities 1976, 1330, "comprehensive scheme" comprising capable supporting 1972. serves overcome "well-pleaded complaint" rule preclude 494, 1971-72; Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. Thompson, 478 804, 808, 106 3229, 3232, 92 650 (1986) (under "[a] inadequate jurisdiction"); Louisville R. Mottley, 211 149, 53 126 (1908). inclined abandon longstanding reading preserves doubt. Califano Yamasaki, 442 682, 693, 2545, 2553, 61 176 (1979) ("[I]f 'a construction fairly possible [a constitutionality] avoided,' Crowell Benson, 285 22, 62, 52 285, 296, 598 (1932), construction") (brackets original). At oral urged avoid difficulties. Tr. Oral Arg. 6. 1815 served provide forum defenses [and] protect hostile courts." insists full achieved More important, suggests generalized suffices 35 have, past, found 17, recognize prosecutions, discern 36 happens, located Jose, observes, county seats 350 nearest Respondent 47, 25. Nation's large less populous distances accompanying prosecutors acute. example, distance Barrow, Alaska, seat Second District, Nome, sits, 500 miles. emphasized: 37 "[U]nder system, goes saying preventing dealing business Government. Because regulation pre-eminently matter identified strong proceedings." Arizona Manypenny, 451 232, 243, 101 1657, 1665, 68 58 (1981) (citations internal quotations omitted). 38 unwilling credit ominous intimations collaborationist interfering otherwise. certainly confronted decisions. true existed, specifically directed efforts carry mandated E.g., (1880). 43-44, 193-94, respect 33: "In answer suggestion evilly minded evade useful say kind obstruct seriously discretion amend words shall enlarged evidence motive wish hinder considering intimating enlargement valid; deciding broadened fair give meaning. These defendants With 40 Taft's 63 ago apply well today; seeks. 41 So ordered. whom MARSHALL joins, concurring. 42 I concur write emphasize point overlooked. routine traffic-accident like here, significant removal; accordingly, difficult intended far. inconceivable, concern about play circumstances unable days widespread resistance authorities Acts areas school desegregation voting rights distant oblivious harassment authorities. take unjustified offenses, seem me, unfortunate exceptional 43 rightly refrains possible, us. leaves open function, "careful Ante, 132. today's foreclose join "Arising Under" Clause Power States] Cases Constitution, Laws Treaties made, Authority." Const., III, cl. 1.

Category: 8