Whether a private entity is 'acting under' a federal officer for purposes of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 when federal officials, through orders and regulations, direct the entity' production of a product the government requires to respond to a national emergency

QUESTIONS PRESENTED During World War II (“WWII”), the U.S. government recognized that it would need unprecedented quantities of oil to conduct and win the war and, accordingly, launched a massive government effort to secure sufficient supplies of this most critical war material. Invoking his war powers, the President created a new temporary agency—the Petroleum Administration for War (“PAW”)—to take all action necessary to meet the government’s oil needs. According to the government’s own account, the oil industry worked as “extensions of the government,” and, under PAW’s direction, produced the billions of barrels of oil the United States required to prevail over the Axis powers. More than 70 years later, Louisiana coastal parishes, joined by the state of Louisiana, filed this and 41 other cases in state court under a 1978 state law, alleging that oil companies should have employed more environmentally protective oil production practices going back for decades. The companies removed this and related cases to federal court because many of the challenged practices were undertaken by the companies during WWII while “acting under” PAW. The Fifth Circuit nonetheless ruled that the case should be remanded to state court. The Fifth Circuit reviewed the District Court’s decision without giving petitioners the benefit of inferences in their favor. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a private entity is “acting under” a federal officer for purposes of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 when federal officials, through orders and regulations, direct the entity’ production of a product the government requires to respond to a national emergency. ii 2. Whether, in assessing federal-officer removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, both the district court and the court of appeals must accept as true all facts alleged by the removing party and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.