On September 11, 2025, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve federal officer removal jurisdiction for federal contractors who are sued for actions related to their contracts with the federal government. In this case, the defendant oil companies refined oil during WWII pursuant to contracts with the federal government. Decades later, they were sued in state court by a number of Louisiana municipalities seeking damages for the impacts to Louisiana’s coastal environment from the defendants’ oil drilling. After the case was removed to federal court and appealed on the issue of removal, the Fifth Circuit wrongly held that in order for the federal officer removal statute to apply, federal contracts must contain an explicit “directive” from a federal officer, such that parties to the contract are “acting under” the officer. After a series of appeals to and remands by the 5th Circuit, the defendants sought Supreme Court review. The Court granted certiorari in June.
In our fifth brief filed in this litigation, the NAM argues that federal contractors have long relied on the protection of the federal officer removal statute when transacting with the government, and that a “contractual directive” requirement unduly narrows the text of the statute, which broadly applies to all claims “relating to” work under a federal officer. Without federal officer removal, the NAM argues, federal contractors would be hesitant to take on work that is nationally important but locally unpopular.