Mesa v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · 1989 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsRemovalFederal Officer RemovalArticle III Jurisdiction28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)federal officer removalcolorable federal defenseunder color of office

Facts

Kathryn Mesa and Shabbir Ebrahim were United States Postal Service mailtruck drivers in Santa Clara County, California. California filed criminal complaints against them for traffic-related offenses arising from separate on-duty collisions, including misdemeanor manslaughter against Mesa and speeding and failure to yield against Ebrahim. The United States Attorney petitioned to remove both prosecutions to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), alleging only that the charged conduct occurred while they were on duty and acting within the course and scope of their employment. The removal petitions did not assert any federal immunity or other federal defense.

Issue

May federal employees remove state criminal prosecutions to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) merely because the prosecutions arise from acts performed while on duty, or must the removal petition also aver a colorable federal defense?

Rule

Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) must be predicated on the averment of a colorable federal defense. Section 1442(a) is a pure jurisdictional statute and does not itself supply the Article III basis for arising-under jurisdiction; that basis comes from the federal question raised in the officer's removal petition.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lena Ortiz, a mechanic for the United States Forest Service in Boise, Idaho, was charged in Idaho state court with misdemeanor property damage after a government truck she was driving backed into a privately owned fence while she was on duty. Her removal petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) alleges only that she was a federal employee acting within the course of her duties at the time of the incident.

Should the federal district court retain the case?

Explanation. Removal under § 1442(a) requires more than federal employment and on-duty conduct. The majority held that the statute is a pure jurisdictional statute and does not itself supply Article III arising-under jurisdiction; the needed federal question comes from a colorable federal defense raised in the removal petition. Because Lena alleges only scope of employment, remand is required.