Whether a private actor that assists the federal government in securing the national food supply during a national emergency, under extensive federal supervision, 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., (“Tyson”) continued to operate its facilities under federal supervision during the early days of the pandemic. Plaintiffs, who represent the estates of four Tyson employees, sued petitioners in Iowa state court, alleging that Tyson violated statelaw duties by continuing to operate its plants and exposing employees to COVID-19. Petitioners removed those suits to federal court under the federalofficer removal statute, explaining that Tyson had acted under federal direction. The Eighth 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 supervision, is entitled to removal under the federalofficer removal statute.