Hus Buljic v. Tyson Foods Inc, 22f4th730

Plaintiffs are relatives of four workers at Tyson Foods’ Waterloo, Iowa pork plant who allegedly contracted COVID‑19 at work in March–April 2020 and later died; they sued Tyson in state court for fraudulent misrepresentation and gross negligence.
Plaintiffs allege Tyson failed to provide adequate PPE, enforce distancing, knowingly moved infected workers between plants, and encouraged or allowed symptomatic employees to work.
Tyson removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) (federal‑officer removal), asserting it was "acting under" federal direction to keep the food supply running, and also invoked federal jurisdiction under the Defense Production Act (DPA).
The district court remanded, concluding Tyson had not met the federal‑officer removal elements and that Plaintiffs’ petitions pleaded state law claims; Tyson appealed.
The Eighth Circuit held Tyson failed to show it was "acting under" a federal officer in March–April 2020 (federal statements were exhortatory, not directives), the DPA-based executive order postdated the relevant infections/deaths, and Tyson abandoned its alternative federal‑question argument on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1442 federal‑officer removal applies ("acting under")	Tyson was not acting under federal officers; federal statements were non‑binding encouragement	Tyson was enlisted by federal government to maintain the national food supply and was subject to federal direction/guidance	Tyson failed to show it was "acting under" a federal officer; encouragement/critical‑infrastructure designation insufficient; remand affirmed
Whether federal‑question removal exists under the DPA	Plaintiffs’ claims are state torts raising no substantial federal question	Tyson argued DPA issues confer federal jurisdiction	Argument abandoned on appeal; court declined to reach merits and affirmed remand

Jacks v. Meridian Res. Co., LLC, 701 F.3d 1224 (8th Cir. 2012) (articulates § 1442 removal elements and ‘acting under’ standard)
Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (U.S. 2007) (private compliance with federal law is insufficient; private actor must assist federal duties)
Graves v. 3M Co., 17 F.4th 764 (8th Cir. 2021) (discusses limits of federal‑officer removal for private contractors)
BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532 (U.S. 2021) (authorizes appellate review of all grounds for remand when district court rejects all removal bases)
Maglioli v. All. HC Holdings LLC, 16 F.4th 393 (3d Cir. 2021) (CISA critical‑infrastructure designation does not automatically satisfy ‘acting under’)
Fidelitad, Inc. v. Insitu, Inc., 904 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2018) (paradigmatic ‘acting under’ examples and required delegation/enlistment)
Isaacson v. Dow Chem. Co., 517 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2008) (private contractors producing goods for government can qualify as acting under in some contexts)