On March 24, 2025, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to address a circuit split concerning federal officer removal jurisdiction. This case is one of over 40 cases filed by a group of Louisiana parishes in state court seeking relief for alleged damage to Louisiana’s coastal environment. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants—energy manufacturers—violated state environmental laws by violating or failing to obtain a use permit for oil production activities on the Louisiana coast. Importantly, the defendants were acting, in part, pursuant to contracts with the government to refine crude oil into high-octane aviation gasoline to support the Allies in WWII. Because federal courts have jurisdiction over civil actions against “any person acting under [an] officer” of the United States “for or relating to any act under color of such office,” the defendants removed the case to federal court. Although a 5th Circuit panel agreed that the defendants acted under a federal officer, it split on whether the defendants’ production of crude oil “relat[ed] to” their government contracts. The majority held that a removing party must identify a “relevant federal directive” for a federal court to exercise federal officer removal jurisdiction and the defendants’ oil production lacked a sufficient connection with directives in their federal refinery contracts. The defendants have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
In our amicus brief, we argue that the Court should hear the case to resolve a circuit split on this important issue. Most circuits have read the phrase “relating to” as requiring only a connection or association between an act taken under a federal officer and the subject matter of a suit, not strict causation, like the 5th Circuit. Federal contractors may cease performing work for the federal government that is nationally important but locally unpopular if the 5th Circuit’s decision stands.