## Facts

- Kathryn Isabella Mesa and Shabbir A. Ebrahim were United States Postal Service mail-truck drivers.
- Each was charged in separate California state criminal complaints with traffic violations arising from unrelated accidents while driving mail trucks on duty.
- 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 defendants were federal employees acting within the scope of their employment.
- Neither defendant asserted official immunity or any other federal defense to the state charges.
- The federal district court granted removal.
- The Ninth Circuit issued a writ of mandamus directing remand to state court because no colorable federal defense was alleged.

## Issues

1. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) permits removal of a state criminal prosecution against a federal employee based solely on on-duty conduct, without alleging a colorable federal defense.
2. Whether Article III permits federal jurisdiction over a removed state criminal prosecution when no federal defense or other federal issue is presented.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s judgment directing remand.
- Removal under § 1442(a)(1) must be predicated on an averment of a federal defense.
- Because Mesa and Ebrahim did not and could not assert a colorable federal immunity defense (or other federal defense), § 1442(a)(1) did not authorize removal.

## Legal Principles

- Federal officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) requires a colorable federal defense; federal employment and scope-of-duty allegations alone are insufficient.
- The “causal connection” requirement between acts under asserted federal authority and the prosecution does not replace the independent requirement of a federal defense.
- Section 1442 is jurisdictional and functions to provide a federal forum for litigating federal defenses; it does not create federal jurisdiction over purely state-law prosecutions lacking a federal defense.
- Liberal pleading rules may allow a federal defense to be stated generally in a removal petition, but they do not excuse the absence of any viable federal defense.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 1442(a)(1) does not allow removal of state criminal prosecutions against federal employees merely because the conduct occurred while performing federal duties; removal is available only when the defendant asserts a colorable federal defense warranting a federal forum.


Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121 (1989)