Holding that, as to element three, the moving party must show that the suit is "for a[n] act under color of office," which requires a causal nexus "between the charged conduct and asserted official authority"
489 U.S. 121 (1989) Cited 674 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding § 1442 "cannot independently support Art. III `arising under' jurisdiction," and, thus, removal thereunder "must be predicated upon the averment of a federal defense"
551 U.S. 142 (2007) Cited 341 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hen a company complies with a regulatory order, it does not ordinarily create a significant risk of state-court ‘prejudice.’ A state-court suit brought against such a company is not likely to disable federal officials from taking necessary action designed to enforce federal law, nor to deny a federal forum to an individual entitled to assert a federal immunity claim."
395 U.S. 402 (1969) Cited 837 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal court has jurisdiction over a case properly removed under § 1442 "regardless of whether the suit could originally have been brought in a federal court"
Holding the "acting under" prong satisfied because Dow "received delegated authority" from the Pentagon "to provide a product [Agent Orange] that the [g]overnment was using during war" and that it would otherwise need to produce itself
28 U.S.C. § 1447 Cited 33,748 times 110 Legal Analyses
Holding that with exceptions not relevant here, "[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise"