International Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund

Citation111 S.Ct. 1700,114 L.Ed.2d 134,500 U.S. 72
Decision Date20 May 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90-89,90-89
PartiesINTERNATIONAL PRIMATE PROTECTION LEAGUE and its Members, et al., Petitioners v. ADMINISTRATORS OF TULANE EDUCATIONAL FUND, et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Petitioners, organizations and individuals seeking the humane treatment of animals, filed suit in a Louisiana court to enjoin respondents, the Institutes for Behavior Resources (IBR), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund (Tulane), from using certain monkeys for federally funded medical experiments and to obtain custody over the animals. NIH removed the case to the Federal District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which permits removal when the defendant is "[a]ny officer of the United States or any agency thereof, or person acting under him, [in a suit challenging] any act under color of such office. . . ." The court granted the equivalent of a preliminary injunction barring NIH from euthanizing, and completing medical research on, some of the monkeys. However, the Court of Appeals vacated the injunction and dismissed the case, finding that petitioners lacked Article III standing to seek protection of the monkeys and that federal agencies have the power to remove cases under § 1442(a)(1).

Held:

1. Petitioners have standing to challenge the removal of the case. They have suffered an injury—the lost right to sue in the forum of their choice—that can be traced to NIH's action—the removal. And, if they prevail, their injury will be redressed because the federal courts will lose subject matter jurisdiction and the case will be remanded. Although the Court of Appeals ruled that petitioners lacked standing to seek protection of the monkeys, the adverseness required for standing to contest the removal is supplied by petitioners' desire to prosecute their claims in state court. Pp. 76-78.

2. Section 1442(a)(1) excludes agencies from the removal power. Pp. 78-87.

(a) The section's grammar and language support the view that removal power is granted only to an "officer" either "of the United States" or of one of its agencies. If the phrase "or any agency thereof" described a separate category of entities endowed with removal power, it would have been separated from the preceding phrase by a comma in the same way that the subsequent "person acting under him" clause is set apart. In addition, the "acting under" clause makes little sense if the immediately preceding words—which should contain the antecedent for "him"—refer to an agency rather than to an individual. Nor would an agency normally be described as exercising authority "under color" of an "office." IBR mistakenly contends that the "agency thereof" language is redundant unless it signifies the agency itself because any agency officer is necessarily an officer of the United States. However, when § 1442(a)(1) was enacted in 1948, the relationship between certain independent agencies and the United States Government was often disputed. Thus, it is more likely that Congress inserted the language to eliminate any doubt that officers of entities like the Tennessee Valley Authority had the same removal authority as other officers of the United States. Pp. 79-82.

(b) Also unpersuasive is NIH's alternative basis for agency removal power. Reading the phrase "person acting under him" to refer to an agency acting under an officer is rather tortured. Moreover, in common usage the term "person" does not include the sovereign, especially where such a reading is decidedly awkward. And there is no support in § 1442(a)(1)'s legislative history for the argument that Congress' intent to extend removal authority to agencies can be inferred from contemporary changes it made to the federal administrative structure that created, and selectively waived the sovereign immunity of, several independent agencies. Pp. 82-84.

(c) This construction of § 1442(a)(1) does not produce absurd results. Congress could rationally have intended to have removability turn on the technicality of whether plaintiffs named an agency or only individual officers as defendants. The removal statute's nine incarnations preceding § 1442(a)(1)' § 1948 enactment clearly reflect Congress' belief that even hostile state courts could make the determination of an agency's sovereign immunity, and, hence, agencies would not need the protection of federal removal. By contrast, the question of federal officers' immunity was much more complicated, since the determination whether a federal officer had acted ultra vires was fraught with difficulty and subject to considerable manipulation. Thus, even in 1948, Congress could have concluded that officers needed the protection of a federal forum in which to raise their federal defenses. Pp. 84-87.

3. This case must be remanded to state court under the terms of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which declares that a removed case over which a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction "shall be remanded." The barriers to a state-court suit that NIH anticipates are not sufficiently certain to render a remand futile. Louisiana law will determine whether either NIH or an NIH officer will be deemed an indispensable party. Thus, it is not certain that the suit will be dismissed on the ground that NIH cannot be sued in state court or be removed by an NIH officer under § 1442(a)(1). Similarly, whether Tulane will be able to remove the case as a "person acting under" an NIH officer is a mixed question of law and fact that should not be resolved in the first instance by this Court. Pp. 87-89.

895 F.2d 1056 (CA 5 1990), reversed and remanded.

Syllabus

and are respondents here. Respondent Institutes for Behavior Resources (IBR) is a private entity that owns the monkeys.1 Respondent NIH now maintains custody of the monkeys, with IBR's consent. Respondent Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund (Tulane) is the governing body for the primate research center that, in 1986, entered into an agreement with NIH to care for the monkeys. The suit sought to enjoin further experimentation on the monkeys and to obtain custody over them. Petitioners based their claim for this relief upon Louisiana law, including provisions that (1) impose criminal sanctions for cruelty to animals, La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 14:102.1 (1986 and Supp.1991); (2) permit officers of humane societies to remove, to a "stable," animals being subjected to cruelty or that are "bruised, wounded, crippled, abrased, sick, or diseased," La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 3:2431 (1987); (3) authorize tort damages for "[e]very act whatever of man that causes damage to another," La.Civ.Code Ann., Art. 2315 (1979 and Supp.1991); and (4) direct courts to "proceed according to equity" in situations not covered by "legislation or custom," La.Civ.Code Ann., Art. 4 (Supp.1991). See App. to Pet. for Cert. A-35 to A-37.

Shortly after the suit was filed, NIH removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which authorizes removal of state suits by certain federal defendants. The federal District Court then granted a temporary re- straining order barring NIH from carrying out its announced plan to euthanize three of the remaining monkeys and, in the process, to complete some of the medical research by performing surgical procedures. The court extended this order beyond its 20-day limit, see Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 65(b), and NIH accordingly appealed the court's action under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which permits appellate review of preliminary injunctions.

On appeal, NIH argued, inter alia, that petitioners were not entitled to the injunction because they lacked standing to seek protection of the monkeys. Petitioners, in turn, argued that the District Court had no jurisdiction over the case because 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) permits only federal officials—not federal agencies such as NIH—to remove cases in which they are named as defendants. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with NIH that petitioners could not satisfy the requirements under Article III of the United States Constitution for standing. It also held that federal agencies have the power to remove cases under § 1442(a)(1). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the injunction and dismissed the case. See 895 F.2d 1056 (CA5 1990). We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict between the Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Third Circuits on the question whether § 1442(a)(1) permits removal by federal agencies.2 498 U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 507, 112 L.Ed.2d 520 (1990). We conclude that it does not.

II

We confront at the outset an objection raised by NIH to our jurisdiction over the removal question. NIH argues that, because the Court of Appeals found that petitioners lack Article III standing to seek protection of the monkeys, petitioners also lack standing even to contest the removal of their suit. We believe NIH misconceives both standing doctrine and the scope of the lower court's standing ruling.

Standing does not refer simply to a party's capacity to appear in court. Rather, standing is gauged by the specific common-law, statutory or constitutional claims that a party presents. "Typically, . . . the standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint's allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted." Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3325, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984) (emphasis added). See also Fletcher, The Structure of Standing, 98 Yale L.J. 221, 229 (1988) (standing "should be seen as a question of substantive law, answerable by reference to the statutory and constitutional provision whose protection is invoked").

It is well established that a party may challenge a violation of federal statute in federal court if it has suffered "injury that fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant," Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 41, 96...

To continue reading

Request your trial
437 cases
  • Krangel v. Crown, Civ. No. 91-0210-R(P).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • May 4, 1992
    ...shall be deemed the legislative intent."). As the Supreme Court wrote in International Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1700, 1705, 114 L.Ed.2d 134 (1991), "`we continue to recognize that context is important in the quest for a ......
  • Speer v. City of New London
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • April 30, 2021
    ...be dismissed instead of remanded under a futility exception to section 1447(c). See Int'l Primate Prot. League v. Adm'rs of Tulane Educ. Fund , 500 U.S. 72, 87–89, 111 S.Ct. 1700, 114 L.Ed.2d 134 (1991) (considering and rejecting application of futility exception, without deciding such exce......
  • In re National Sec. Agency Telecomm. Records
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • January 18, 2007
    ...that the Supreme Court undermined the exception four months later in International Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 500 U.S. 72, 111 S.Ct. 1700, 114 L.Ed.2d 134 (1991). Doc # 53 at 4, 06-3596. In that case, the Supreme Court declined to assess defendan......
  • Ruelas v. Cnty. of Alameda
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • February 9, 2021
    ...to Supreme Court precedent. ECF No. 53 at 13. For support, Plaintiffs first cite Int'l Primate Prot. League v. Adm'rs of Tulane Educ. Fund , 500 U.S. 72, 83, 111 S.Ct. 1700, 114 L.Ed.2d 134 (1991), in which the Supreme Court wrote, "[O]ur conventional reading of person may ... be disregarde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Unpacking Third-Party Standing.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 No. 1, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...Arizonans for Off. Eng. v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 64 (1997))). (112.) See lnt'1 Primate Prot. League v. Admins, of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72, 76-78 (1991) (holding that state-court plaintiffs had standing to contest the removal of their claims to federal court whether or not they had Ar......
  • Standing and social choice: historical evidence.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 144 No. 2, December 1995
    • December 1, 1995
    ...aptly illustrates the same proposition, consider International Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, 500 U.S. 72 (1991). In that case, the Court held that the plaintiffs, challenging experiments on primates, had standing to challenge the removal of their ac......
  • Using Issue Certification Against a Defendant Class to Establish Causation in Climate Change Litigtion
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 52-4, April 2022
    • April 1, 2022
    ...on grounds that the federal court lacks standing to hear the case. 136. Bell v. City of Kellogg, 922 F.2d 1418 (9th Cir. 1991). 137. 500 U.S. 72 (1991) (holding that the plain language of 28 U.S.C. §1447(c) gives “no discretion to dismiss rather than remand an action removed from state cour......
  • Informational regulation and informational standing: Akins and beyond.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 147 No. 3, January 1999
    • January 1, 1999
    ...interest." 504 U.S. at 560 (emphasis added). See also International Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72 (1991), where the Court said that "standing is gauged by the specific common-law, statutory or constitutional claims that a party presents," and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT