28 U.S.C. § 1442

Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.(2) A property holder whose title is derived from any such officer, where such action or prosecution affects the validity of any law of the United States.(3) Any officer of the courts of the United States, for or relating to any act under color of office or in the performance of his duties;(4) Any officer of either House of Congress, for or relating to any act in the discharge of his official duty under an order of such House.(b) A personal action commenced in any State court by an alien against any citizen of a State who is, or at the time the alleged action accrued was, a civil officer of the United States and is a nonresident of such State, wherein jurisdiction is obtained by the State court by personal service of process, may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division in which the defendant was served with process.(c) Solely for purposes of determining the propriety of removal under subsection (a), a law enforcement officer, who is the defendant in a criminal prosecution, shall be deemed to have been acting under the color of his office if the officer—(1) protected an individual in the presence of the officer from a crime of violence;(2) provided immediate assistance to an individual who suffered, or who was threatened with, bodily harm; or(3) prevented the escape of any individual who the officer reasonably believed to have committed, or was about to commit, in the presence of the officer, a crime of violence that resulted in, or was likely to result in, death or serious bodily injury.(d) In this section, the following definitions apply:(1) The terms “civil action” and “criminal prosecution” include any proceeding (whether or not ancillary to another proceeding) to the extent that in such proceeding a judicial order, including a subpoena for testimony or documents, is sought or issued. If removal is sought for a proceeding described in the previous sentence, and there is no other basis for removal, only that proceeding may be removed to the district court.(2) The term “crime of violence” has the meaning given that term in section 16 of title 18.(3) The term “law enforcement officer” means any employee described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 8401(17) of title 5 and any special agent in the Diplomatic Security Service of the Department of State.(4) The term “serious bodily injury” has the meaning given that term in section 1365 of title 18.(5) The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, United States territories and insular possessions, and Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18).(6) The term “State court” includes the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a court of a United States territory or insular possession, and a tribal court.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 938; Pub. L. 104–317, title II, § 206(a), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3850; Pub. L. 112–51, § 2(a), (b), Nov. 9, 2011, 125 Stat. 545; Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title X, § 1087, Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 1969.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 76 and 77 (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 33, 34, 36 Stat. 1097, 1098; Aug. 23, 1916, ch. 399, 39 Stat. 532).

Section consolidates sections 76 and 77 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed.

The revised subsection (a)(1) is extended to apply to all officers and employees of the United States or any agency thereof. Section 76 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., was limited to revenue officers engaged in the enforcement of the criminal or revenue laws.

The procedural provisions of section 76 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., are incorporated in sections 1446 and 1447 of this title. (See reviser’s notes under those sections.)

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2013—Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 112–239 added subsecs. (c) and (d) and struck out former subsec. (c) which read as follows: “As used in subsection (a), the terms ‘civil action’ and ‘criminal prosecution’ include any proceeding (whether or not ancillary to another proceeding) to the extent that in such proceeding a judicial order, including a subpoena for testimony or documents, is sought or issued. If removal is sought for a proceeding described in the previous sentence, and there is no other basis for removal, only that proceeding may be removed to the district court.”

2011—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–51, § 2(a)(1), inserted “that is” after “or criminal prosecution”, “and that is” after “in a State court”, and “or directed to” after “against” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 112–51, § 2(b)(1), substituted “capacity, for or relating to” for “capacity for” and struck out “sued” after “thereof,”.

Subsec. (a)(3), (4). Pub. L. 112–51, § 2(b)(2), inserted “or relating to” after “for”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 112–51, § 2(a)(2), added subsec. (c).

1996—Pub. L. 104–317, § 206(a)(1), inserted “or agencies” after “officers” in section catchline.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 104–317, § 206(a)(2), struck out “persons” after “following” in introductory provisions and substituted “The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, sued in an official or individual capacity for any act under color of such office” for “Any officer of the United States or any agency thereof, or person acting under him, for any act under color of such office” in par. (1).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3,125 cases (1,411 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Goncalves Ex Rel. Goncalves v. Rady Child.'s Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Goncalves Ex Rel. Goncalves v. Rady Child.'s Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 21× “3 removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1). The panel concluded that the insurance companies were a “person” within the meaning of the statute.”

James Latiolais v. Eagle, Inc., 951 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 2020). · cites it 9× “JONES, Circuit Judge: This appeal was reconsidered en banc because Fifth Circuit precedents concerning the scope of the revised Federal Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1), were extraordinarily confused.”

Melissa Mays v. City of Flint, Mich., 871 F.3d 437 (6th Cir. 2017). · cites it 10× “They first invoked the “federal-officer removal” provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1), contending that all of their conduct in question was performed under the supervision and direction of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA).”

Stephen Legendre v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc, 885 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2018). · cites it 14× “Avondale invoked the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442 , and removed to the Eastern District of Louisiana.”

Cnty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 32 F.4th 733 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 8× “The panel held that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1), because the energy companies were not “acting under” a federal officer’s directions based on agreements with the government,…”

Alsup v. 3-Day Blinds, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 838 (S.D. Ill. 2006). · cites it 16× “(“Lowe’s”), which was served with Plaintiffs’ complaint on February 24, 2006, and which removed the case to this Court on March 24, 2006, asserts that federal subject matter jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442 , governing removal of cases from state court to…”

Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121 (1989). · cites it 10× “We decide today whether United States Postal Service employees may, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1442 (a)(1), remove to Federal District Court state criminal prosecutions brought against them for traffic violations committed while on duty.”

Janya Sawyer v. Foster Wheeler LLC, 860 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2017). · cites it 7× “NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: In this appeal, we are presented with the single issue of whether a government contractor was entitled to remove a state tort action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1) based on the contractor’s assertion that it had a colorable federal…”

Steven Papp v. Fore-Kast Sales Co Inc, 842 F.3d 805 (3rd Cir. 2016). · cites it 6× “Boeing removed Papp’s failure-to-warn suit to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on the basis of the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1). According to Boeing, it was acting as a government contractor when it engaged in the…”

Proceeding before the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia v. Johnson, 790 F.3d 457 (3rd Cir. 2015). · cites it 9× “The Federal Community Defender removed all of these motions under th¿ federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1), (d)(1). In response, the Commonwealth filed motions under 28 U.”

Jackie Saldana v. Glenhaven Healthcare LLC, 27 F.4th 679 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 5× “First, the panel held that the district court lacked jurisdiction under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442 , because Glenhaven did not act under a federal officer or agency’s directions when it * The Honorable Karen E.”

Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007). · cites it 5× “2d 396 (1969), in which the Court construed the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442 , supports our reading of the Westfall Act.”

Show all 3,125 citing cases →

— 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) — 18 cases

Ronald E. Galella v. Jacqueline Onassis, John Walsh, & United States of Am., Intervenor-Appellee, 487 F.2d 986 (2d Cir. 1973).

Jacob M. Poss v. Jerome Lieberman, 299 F.2d 358 (2d Cir. 1962).

Kuenstler v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., 292 F. Supp. 532 (C.D. Cal. 1968).

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Liab., 674 F. Supp. 2d 494 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

In Re 73rd Precinct Station House, Borough of Brooklyn, 329 F. Supp. 1175 (E.D.N.Y 1971).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) — 29 cases

Ryan v. Dow Chem. Co., 781 F. Supp. 934 (E.D.N.Y 1992).

Teresa Bell v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of OK, 823 F.3d 1198 (8th Cir. 2016).

Anderson v. Hackett, 646 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (S.D. Ill. 2009).

People of the State of California v. Express Scripts, Inc., 139 F.4th 763 (9th Cir. 2025).

Donald M. Peterson v. Blue Cross/blue Shield of Texas, Donald M. Peterson v. Bill West, 508 F.2d 55 (5th Cir. 1975).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(3) — 1 case

Cordaro v. Lusardi, 354 F. Supp. 1147 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.