98 F.4th 810
7th Cir.2024Background
- On July 4, 2022, Robert Crimo III used a Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle to commit a mass shooting at a parade in Highland Park, Illinois, killing seven and injuring 48.
- Multiple victims (or their estates) sued Crimo, his father, gun shops, and Smith & Wesson and its affiliates in Illinois state court, alleging various state law claims including tort and consumer/deceptive trade practices.
- Smith & Wesson removed the cases to federal court, arguing their claims "arose under federal law" or because Smith & Wesson was acting under the direction of a federal officer.
- Plaintiffs moved to remand the cases back to state court, arguing their claims arose strictly under Illinois law and removal required consent of all defendants, which was not unanimous.
- The District Court remanded the cases; Smith & Wesson appealed, seeking appellate review under statutory provisions allowing review for federal-officer removals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith & Wesson could remove under §1442(a)(1) as a federal officer | No, they're just a regulated entity, not acting under federal direction | Regulated by ATF; referenced as "partners" with federal agency | Not federal officer; regulation ≠ acting under |
| Whether the suit was removable under §1441(c) (federal question plus state) | Claims are state law; no mixed federal/state claim requiring §1441(c) | There are separate "claims": machine gun (federal) & advertising (state) | No separate claims; just multiple theories |
| Whether all defendants' consent was required for removal under §1441(a) | Yes, consistent with statute and no federal question | §1441(c) allows partial consent due to federal issue | All-defendant consent was required |
| Whether appellate review of remand is allowed (§1447(d) exception) | Only for bona fide §1442 removals | Appellate review applies as §1442 was cited | Allowed review, but removal still erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Philip Morris Cos., 551 U.S. 142 (U.S. 2007) (being subject to federal regulation doesn't make a defendant a federal officer)
- BP p.l.c. v. Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532 (U.S. 2021) (scope of appellate review in federal-officer removal cases)
- Lu Junhong v. Boeing Co., 792 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2015) (federal regulation isn't enough for federal officer status)
- Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (U.S. 1988) (federal officer/removal parameters explained)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (U.S. 2005) (court may award fees for baseless removals)