Question not identified.

Jurisdiction under two removal statutes is at issue . A provision of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 233( l), provides for removal of any civil action or proceeding against a defendant the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services has deemed to be a Public Health Service employee for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) suit immunity. The federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), affords removal jurisdiction to adjudicate “colorable” federal defenses of “any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof” sued “for or relating to” acts taken under color of office. The question s presented are: 1. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 233( l)(1) obligates the Attorney General to appear in state court and report the Secretary’s prior grant of federal employee status to effectuate remov al to federal court—as the Ninth Circuit determined in Blumberger v. Tilley , 115 F.4th 1113 (9th Cir. 2024) —or, as the Third Circuit concluded , merely requires an appearance by the Attorney General, which, if timely, preclude s the defendant from removing under § 233( l)(2). 2. Whether § 1442(a)(1)’s requirement of a colorable federal defense is satisfied by a deemed Public Health Service employee’s claim to 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) immunity —as the Second Circuit concluded in Agyin v. Razmzan , 986 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2021) —or, as the Third Circuit concluded, is insufficient to establish a colorable federal defense.