Whether a private actor that assists the federal government in securing the national food supply during a national emergency, under extensive federal supervision and direction, is entitled to removal under the federal-officer removal statute

QUESTION PRESENTED In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, disruptions in supply and high consumer demand threatened to create national food shortages. The federal government responded by enlisting private industry to combat that threat by directing meatprocessing facilities to remain open in accordance with CDC and OSHA guidance if at all possible. That federal direction was eventually formalized in an Executive Order instructing meatprocessing facilities to continue or resume operations consistent with federal guidance, notwithstanding contrary state or local direction. In accord with that federal direction, petitioner Tyson Foods, Inc., continued to operate its facilities under federal supervision during the early days of the pandemic. Plaintiffs are present and former employees of Tyson, as well as representatives of Tyson employees’ estates, who filed suit in Texas state court alleging that Tyson violated state-law duties by continuing to operate its plants and exposing employees to COVID-19. Petitioners removed those suits to federal court under the federal-officer removal statute, explaining that Tyson had acted under federal direction—something particularly clear where, as here, plaintiffs’ claims arose based in part on events post-dating the Executive Order. The Fifth Circuit, however, ordered the cases remanded to state court, asserting that the federal direction and supervision here was insufficient to warrant a federal forum. The question presented is: Whether a private actor that assists the federal government in securing the national food supply during a national emergency, under extensive federal ii supervision and direction, is entitled to removal under the federal-officer removal statute.