We will hear argument this morning in case 24-813 is Chevron v. Packamund's Parish.

Mr. Clement.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Congress amended the Federal Officer Removal

Act in 2011 and added the words related to.

Both before and after that amendment, this Court emphasized those are words of substantial breath, meaning connected to or associated with.

Thus, the import of Congress adding those capacious words to the statute is hard to deny, so much so that respondents effectively spend very little time defending the lower court's reasoning

unrelated to. Instead, they shift their focus to acting under, which is a distinct

requirement of the statute addressing who can remove and an issue on which they lost

unanimously below. That effort to change the subject does not work. The classic person who acts under a government official is a government contractor providing the government with what it needs to win a war.

Thus, no one doubts that the refining of Avgas under federal contract satisfies the acting under condition.

The only question is whether that refining activity under contract is connected to or associated

with the production activities assailed in these lawsuits.

The answer to that question is straightforward.

The petitioners here produce the very kinds of crude that were the

indispensable component of the avgas they refined under federal contract, and the contracts

themselves drew the connection between avgas and crude by pegging the price that the

government paid for refined avgas to the price of crude and the government

promising that it would rebate any new taxes on crude.

What is more, if the petitioner's production of crude had been enjoined by a state court

during World War II, the federal government's efforts, the war efforts would have suffered.

Now, respondents think that it's anomalous to allow only

the vertically integrated producers to remove to federal court. I don't think there's anything

...