Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Curtis Ulleseit, et al.

Under 28 U.S.C. 1447(d), courts of appeals generally may not review orders remanding removed cases to state court. But Section 1447(d) also states that an “order remanding a case * * * removed pursuant to” 28 U.S.C. 1442, the federal-officer removal statute, or 28 U.S.C. 1443, the civil-rights removal statute, “shall be reviewable by appeal or otherwise.” Some courts read Section 1447(d) to create appellate jurisdiction over all issues in a district court’s remand order when the removing party included the federal-officer or civil-rights removal statutes among its bases for removal. Other courts, such as the Ninth Circuit, hold that appellate jurisdiction exists only to decide whether removal was proper under the federal-officer or civil-rights statutes. The question presented is identical to the question presented in BP p.l.c. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, No. 19-1189 (argued Jan. 19, 2021): Whether 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) permits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district court’s order remanding a removed case to state court where the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1443.