## Facts

- Consumers filed a putative class action in Arkansas state court alleging deceptive marketing of “light” and “low tar” cigarettes under state unfair-business-practice law.
- The complaint alleged the manufacturer manipulated cigarette design and testing conditions so standardized testing would show lower tar and nicotine yields than consumers actually received.
- The testing method at issue was a standardized machine-testing protocol associated with federal agency oversight of tar and nicotine measurements and related advertising disclosures.
- The manufacturer removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), asserting it was a “person acting under” a federal officer because federal regulators directed and closely supervised the testing and reporting regime.
- The federal district court upheld removal, and the court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that extensive federal supervision resembled the type of direction present in some government-contractor removal cases.

## Issues

1. Whether a private company becomes a “person acting under” a federal officer for purposes of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) merely by complying with detailed federal regulatory supervision, including federally supervised testing and reporting.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed.
- The Court held that extensive federal direction, supervision, and monitoring of a company’s conduct, without more, does not make the company a “person acting under” a federal officer under § 1442(a)(1).
- Because the statutory requirement was not met, removal was improper and the case was to be remanded to Arkansas state court.

## Legal Principles

- Federal-officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) is available to federal officers and to private parties only when the private party is “acting under” a federal officer.
- “Acting under” requires a special relationship of subjection, guidance, or control in which the private party assists or helps carry out the federal superior’s duties and is authorized to act with or for the federal officer in executing federal law.
- Compliance with federal regulation—even intensive, detailed, and closely monitored regulation—does not by itself constitute “acting under” a federal officer.
- Analogies to government-contractor cases generally require more than regulation; they typically involve performing a task on the government’s behalf under delegated authority or comparable arrangements.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a regulated manufacturer could not remove a state-law consumer-fraud case under § 1442(a)(1) based solely on detailed federal oversight of testing and advertising practices, because regulatory compliance does not establish the assistance relationship required to be “acting under” a federal officer.


Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (2007)