Watson v. Philip Morris (2007)
The Supreme Court rejected Philip Morris's attempt to remove state lawsuits over 'light' cigarette marketing to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. Philip Morris claimed it was 'acting under' federal officers because it followed FTC testing protocols. The Court held that merely complying with federal regulations doesn't create the 'acting under' relationship required for removal—contractors must provide 'affirmative assistance' in executing federal duties under actual direction or control.
Supreme Court ruled against Philip Morris, keeping state lawsuits in state courts.
Congress responded in 2011 by amending the statute to expand removal rights, changing 'for any act' to 'for or relating to any act.'
Chevron argues the 2011 amendment overturned Watson's narrow reading. The parishes counter that even under the amended statute, oil production decades after WWII doesn't sufficiently 'relate to' wartime refining contracts to justify removal.