Document: 127 S. Ct. 2301 (2007) Lisa WATSON, et al., Petitioners, v. PHILIP MORRIS COMPANIES, INC., al. No. 05-1284. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 25, 2007. Decided June 11, *2303 David C. Frederick, Washington, D.C., for petitioners. Irving G. Gornstein, States as amicus curiae, by special leave Court, supporting Theodore B. Olson, respondents. Steven Eugene Cauley, James Allen Carney, Marcus N. Bozeman, Bowman, Carney & Williams, PLLC, Little Rock, Arkansas, Counsel Record, Mark L. Evans, Kelly P. Dunbar, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans Figel, P.L.L.C., Petitioners. Murray R. Garnick, M. Rosenthal, Arnold Porter LLP, Kenneth Geller, Mayer, Brown, Rowe Maw A. Perry, Amir Tayrani, Gibson, Dunn Crutcher Respondents. Justice BREYER delivered the opinion Court. The federal officer removal statute permits a defendant to remove court state-court action brought against "United or any agency thereof (or person acting under that officer) *2304 thereof, sued in an official individual capacity act color such office ...." 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) (emphasis added). question before us is whether fact regulatory directs, supervises, and monitors company's activities considerable detail brings company within scope italicized language ("acting under" "officer" States) thereby removal. We hold it does not. I Watson Loretta Lawson, petitioners, filed civil lawsuit Arkansas state claiming Philip Morris Companies, respondents, violated laws prohibiting unfair deceptive business practices. complaint focuses upon advertisements packaging describe certain brand cigarettes (Marlboro Cambridge Lights) "light," term indicating lower tar nicotine levels than those present other cigarettes. More specifically, refers design performance are tested accordance with Filter Method, method "the tobacco industry [uses] `measure' cigarettes." App. Pet. Cert. 63a-64a. charges "manipulat[ed] design" its cigarettes, "employ[ed] techniques that" would cause "to register on [the Method] be consumers product." Id., at 63a-65a. adds "greater amounts when smoked actual conditions" adjective "light" used advertising indicates. 65a. In view these related practices, concludes Morris' behavior was "deceptive misleading" law. 64a, 66a. Morris, referring statute, removed case Federal District That court, turn, held authorized wrote attacked use Government's testing For this reason (and others), petitioners had "act[s]" taken "under" Trade Commission, (staffed "officer[s]"). certified interlocutory review. And Appeals Eighth Circuit affirmed. Like emphasized FTC's detailed supervision cigarette process. It also cited cases permitting heavily supervised Government contractors. See 420 F.3d 852, 857 (2005); Winters Diamond Shamrock Chemical Co., 149 387 (C.A.5 1998) (authorizing tort suit private defense contractors manufactured Agent Orange). concluded "acting "officer[s]," namely FTC, respect challenged conduct. F.3d, 854. granted certiorari. 549 U.S. ___, 1055, 166 Ed. 2d 797 (2007). we now reverse Circuit's determination. II only if carrying out subject petitioners' complaint, "agency" States." 1442(a)(1). words broad, *2305 has made clear must "liberally construed." Colorado Symes, 286 510, 517, 52 635, 76 1253 (1932); see Arizona Manypenny, 451 232, 242, 101 1657, 68 58 (1981); Willingham Morgan, 395 402, 406-407, 89 1813, 23 396 (1969). But broad not limitless. liberal construction nonetheless can find limits text's language, context, history, purposes. Beginning note Congress enacted original near end War 1812, war popular New England. id., 405, 1813. Indeed, shipowners from region many claims customs officials charged enforcing trade embargo Wiecek, Reconstruction Judicial Power, 1863-1875, 13 Am. J. Legal Hist. 333, 337 responded provision permitted officers "any aiding assisting" them "in court" court. Customs Act 1815, ch. 31, 8, 3 Stat. 198 This initial "[o]bviously ... attempt protect interference hostile courts." Willingham, U.S., early 1830's, South Carolina passed Nullification declaring tariff unconstitutional authorizing prosecution agents who collected tariffs. ibid. then new States, person" "for account done revenue Mar. 2, 1833, 57, 3, 4 633 As Senator Daniel Webster explained time, where courts might prove law, hence enforced "give chance [federal] defend himself authority law recognised." 9 Cong. Deb. 461 (1833). Soon after Civil War, yet another "on his office" officer." July 13, 1866, 184, 67, 14 171 Elsewhere restricted latter persons engaged acts collection taxes." 172. 1948, again revised dropping limitation context. included rewritten 1948 recodification. 646, 1442(a), 62 938, 1442(a). version that, exception modification response Court's decision International Primate Protection League Administrators Tulane Fund, 500 72, 111 1700, 114 134 (1991), us. While expanded statute's coverage include all officers, nowhere indicated intent change words, under," described triggering relationship between entity officer. Turning precedent, point three cases, involving illegal liquor, which help illustrate need for, workings of, pre-1948 statutes. 1878, officer, Davis, raided distillery *2306 Tennessee; ambushed several armed men; returned ambushers' gunfire; shot one attackers dead. Tennessee 100 257, 261, 25 648 (1880). indicted Davis murder. reasoning "can through agents, they 263. Removal, found, prevent "paralyz[ing]" initiatives. Ibid. About same Army corporal (also called Lemuel Davis) along soldiers helped try arrest distiller violating internal-revenue laws. surrounded house; escaped hole side wall; Corporal suspect; case, upheld acknowledged although he "who lawfully assist[ed]" duty." Carolina, 107 597, 600, 2 636, 27 574 (1883). 1920's, Maryland group prohibition their driver murder committed during raid. Soper, 270 9, 46 185, 70 449 (1926). sought trial ultimately rejected efforts reasons relevant here. doing so pointed "as chauffeur helper four orders and... direction" right benefit of" did agents. 30, 185. Apart demonstrating dangers associated working alcohol business, casesTennessee Soperillustrate "basic" purpose "operations" ensue were State able, example, "arres[t]" bring cour[t] alleged offense State," "officers agents" authority." 406, 1813 (internal quotation marks omitted). (noting "purpose" "is hard discern"). State-court proceedings may reflect "local prejudice" unpopular officials. supra, 32, 185; 1657 trials occur free prejudice"). addition, impede delay enforcement 263; cf. Findley Satterfield, F. Cas. (No. 4,792) (CC ND Ga. 1877). deprive forum assert immunity defenses. League, 86-87, 1700; 407, ("[O]ne most important have validity tried court"); Jefferson County Acker, 527 423, 447, 119 2069, 144 408 (1999) (SCALIA, J., concurring part dissenting part) main point" *2307 give litigate merits defenses"). Where assistant helping enforce some considerations apply. Regardless, applies assist" 636. City Greenwood Peacock, 384 808, 824, 86 1800, 16 944 (1966), interpreting provision, repeated parties "only" "authorized [federal agents] affirmatively executing duties law." All post-1948 found consistent views. Mesa California, 489 121, 109 959, 103 99 (1989); supra; supra. III With history precedent mind, return language. "agency." word refer what been involves capacity, considered relation holding superior position office." 18 Oxford English Dictionary 948 (2d ed.1989). typically "subjection, guidance, control." Webster's 2765 ed.1953). Funk Wagnalls Standard Language 2604 (1942) (defining meaning "[s]ubordinate subservient to," "[s]ubject tutorship, direction of"); Dictionary, 949 ("[s]ubject instruction, direction, guidance of"). statutory make person's involve effort assist, carry out, tasks superior. See, e.g., 636; 2305-2307. our view, assistance necessary simply complying recognize sometimes speaker say complies "helps" "assists" governmental enforcement. Taxpayers fill complex tax forms, airline passengers obey regulations smoking, matter well-behaved prisoners, "help" "assist" authorities sense words. statute. One usually taxpayers, passengers, prisoners compliance acquiescence order), giving order discussed. 2304-2307. Finally, purpose. When (even highly order) order, ordinarily create significant risk "prejudice." Cf. *2308 241-242, 1657. Nor likely disable taking designed 262-263. deny entitled claim immunity. upshot regulated firm cannot basis regulation alone. A firm's noncompliance) laws, rules, itself fall phrase "official." even monitored. contrary determination expand considerably, potentially bringing actions firms industries. Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act, 7 136a (2000 ed. Supp. IV) (mandating disclosure results context pesticide registration). Neither nor lead believe intended expansion. IV advances two arguments contrary. First, points terms least contractor unusually close regulation, monitoring, supervision. Winters, 387. asks why, sufficient turn into "officer," do subjected intense regulation. answer lies produce item needs. provide goes beyond simple helps fulfill basic tasks. Dow fulfilled contractual agreement providing product conduct war. Moreover, arguably, performed job absence contract firm, perform. These circumstances distinguish case. purposes distinction sufficient. further examine here (a contracting issue) particular enable invoke Second, argues issue consist orders. contends initially nicotine, "delegated authority" task industry-financed laboratory 1987. E.g., Brief Respondents 31 asserts (along companies) pursuant delegation. ever since "delegation" FTC "extensive[ly]... supervis[ed]" "closely monitored" manner tests 37, 39. given *2309 circumstances, just Department Defense Orange, 399, conducts testing. 38. argument's sake shall overlook appear challenge way "designed" laboratory) conducted assume following testing-related facts sets forth brief: (1) 1950's, ordered companies stop amount contained 3. (2) 1966, altered course. advertise "tar yields" provided substantiated statement developed Dr. Clyde Ogg, Agriculture employee. 4-5. (3) Method uses "a smoking machine takes 35 milliliter puff seconds' duration every 60 seconds until specified butt length." Brown Williamson Tobacco Corp., 778 F.2d 35, 37 (C.A.D.C. 1985). measures delivered. data, determine labeled "light." method, Ogg testified, "will tell smoker how much will get cigarette," but indicate" more there difference smokes manner." 5-6 (4) 1967, began own perform tests. 6. referred `FTC Method.'" 4. (5) published periodically sent annually Congress. 7. (6) Due cost considerations, stopped Simultaneously, assumed responsibility testing, running according specifications monitor process closely. (7) continues publish send (8) followed requirement manufacturers disclose about) content based exclusively 8-9. Assuming timeline, argument contains fatal flawa flaw omission. Although variations times throughout brief, no evidence delegation legal association undertake agency's behalf. contract, payment, employer/employee relationship, principal/agent arrangement. examined documents amici refer. Some specifications, others inspection laboratory's *2310 still statements advertising. none establish type formal authorize Several former officials, brief "[i]n 198[7] delegated Industry Testing Lab (the `TITL')." Former Commissioners Senior Staff 11. support proposition cites single source, letter manufacturers' lawyer official. states: "[M]ajor manufacturers, responsible TITL's operations whose behalf writing, Commission oversight needed .... Nevertheless, accommodation spirit cooperation, prepared permit employees TITL program ." Letter John Rupp Judith Wilkenfeld (June 1987), online http://tobaccodocuments. org/nysa_ti_s1/TI57900738.html (as visited 7, 2007, available Clerk file). Nothing authority. neither agencies normally delegate entities without saying so. Without analogy breaks down. left rules about advertising, requirements reporting results, like. sounds like If kind and, say, Food Drug Administration prescription drug marketing (which requirements), Serono Labs., Inc. Shalala, 158 1313, 1316 1998), degree, kind. however, differences degree themselves transform "officer." Supra, 2307. And, though supervision, nothing warrants treating FTC/Philip distinct usual regulator/regulated relationship. explained, construed reasons, judgment reversed, remanded opinion. ordered.

Category: 8