Background
The Town of Pine Hill sued 3M and other defendants in Alabama state court for negligence, wantonness, nuisance, and trespass arising from PFAS contamination in the Alabama River. Pine Hill alleged that 3M supplied PFAS-containing products to paper mills whose wastewater entered the river, Pine Hill’s source of drinking water. The town said it would need a new filtration system and additional monitoring to remove and track the chemicals.
3M removed the case under the federal officer removal statute, asserting that it had manufactured PFAS-containing aqueous film forming foam, or AFFF, for the military under detailed federal specifications. According to 3M’s removal notice, AFFF released at Maxwell Air Force Base could have entered groundwater flowing toward the Alabama River and commingled with PFAS from the paper mills. Pine Hill expressly disclaimed claims or relief based on AFFF contamination, and the district court remanded the case after concluding that the suit centered on 3M’s nonfederal supply of PFAS products to paper mills.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Circuit held that 3M sufficiently alleged all three requirements for federal officer removal. First, 3M acted under a federal officer when it helped the military meet its need for AFFF manufactured according to military specifications. The majority concluded that the statute can cover civil liability arising from conduct performed in the past while acting under federal authority.
Second, crediting 3M’s theory of the case at the removal stage, the court found the required connection between Pine Hill’s claims and 3M’s federal conduct. The gravamen of the complaint was the overall PFAS contamination of Pine Hill’s water supply, and 3M plausibly alleged that military AFFF from Maxwell Air Force Base contributed to that contamination. Pine Hill’s disclaimers did not defeat jurisdiction because deciding whether contamination came from AFFF would still require a court to examine the relationship between the alleged harm and 3M’s federally directed conduct.
Third, 3M raised a colorable government-contractor defense by plausibly alleging that the military approved reasonably precise AFFF specifications, 3M’s products conformed to them, and the government knew the relevant risks. The court did not decide whether the defense would ultimately succeed. It vacated the remand order and returned the case to the district court for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A government contractor need only plausibly allege the requirements for federal officer removal; the merits of its federal defense are not resolved at the removal stage.
- A disclaimer can defeat federal officer removal only if it fully eliminates the federal ground without requiring a state court to determine the nexus between the challenged conduct and federal authority.
- When evaluating removal allegations, courts must credit the removing defendant’s theory of the case and identify the gravamen of the plaintiff’s claims.
Why It Matters
The decision makes it harder for plaintiffs in the Eleventh Circuit to avoid federal jurisdiction in PFAS cases merely by disclaiming injuries linked to military AFFF. When contamination from federal and nonfederal sources may have commingled, a disclaimer may be ineffective if resolving causation would require adjudicating the contractor’s federally directed conduct.
The ruling concerns jurisdiction, not 3M’s ultimate liability. On remand, 3M must still prove any government-contractor defense and contest Pine Hill’s state-law claims on the merits.