The bar of §1447 d) applies equally to cases removed under the general removal statute, §1441, and to those removed under other provisions, see Things Remembered, Inc., supra, at 128, and the force of the bar is not subject to any statutory exception that might cover this case.8 Ostensibly, then, §1447 d) stands in the way of reviewing the District Court's orders of remand in the present cases.
The federal officer removal statute allows "suits against federal officers [to] be removed despite the nonfederal cast of the complaint," Jefferson County v. Acker, 527 U. S. 423, 431 (1999), and reflects a congressional policy that "federal officers, and indeed the Federal Government itself, require the protection of a federal forum," Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U. S. 402, 407 (1969).
Crane Company removed the suit to federal district court under the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
In addition, the plaintiffs said neither the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the federal enclave doctrine, nor the bankruptcy removal statute provided a basis for removal.
12 The funds argue 15 U. S. C. §77p confers jurisdiction greater than that necessary to render the preclusion decision, analogizing §77p(c) to the federal officer removal statute, 28 U. S. C. §1442(a).
The removal statute was enacted in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 under the authority of the Thirteenth Amendment; §§ 1343(3) and (4), on the other hand, are based upon the authority of the Fourteenth Amendment which, unlike the Thirteenth Amendment, is not limited to racially based claims of inequality.
L. Rev. 1421, 1426 (noting that in the FEC's founding statute, "[f]or-cause removal protection for commissioners was not explicitly provided, but such protection is so central to most conceptions of agency independence that courts have assumed it was included in the design of the FEC and other independent agencies") (citations omitted).
Zeringue argued that in order to benefit from the federal-officer removal statute, Crane had to prove that it met each factor of the government-contractor defense.
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit late last month reversed one district court judge's crabbed interpretation of a removal statute which consigned an asbestos-liability defendant to the notoriously pro-plaintiff Louisiana state courts.
The court added "that official authority relates to Crane's allegedly improper actions, namely its use of asbestos in those parts". The federal-officer removal statute and the government-contractor defense share common purposes.
