Robert Barker sued his neighbors, Edward and Beverly Boettcher, in Illinois state court over a property line dispute regarding land in Champaign County. The Boettchers counterclaimed, asserting adverse possession. During the litigation, the Boettchers served subpoenas on two employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to produce farm-acreage documents and appear at a state court hearing. The Department refused to comply, citing federal regulations, and removed only the subpoena proceeding to federal court under the federal officer removal statute. The Boettchers then attempted to remove the entire property dispute to federal court, arguing that the property lines were established by federal land ordinances and deeds, creating a federal question. The district court retained jurisdiction over the subpoena matter but remanded the property dispute to state court, later quashing the subpoenas. The Boettchers appealed the remand order.
The Seventh Circuit addressed two primary issues. First, the court confirmed its appellate jurisdiction to review the remand order. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), remand orders are generally unreviewable, but an exception exists for orders remanding cases removed pursuant to the federal officer statute (§ 1442). Citing BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, the court held that this exception allows review of the entire remand order, not just the portion related to the federal officer statute. Second, the court analyzed the scope of removal. The federal officer statute (§ 1442(d)) explicitly allows federal officers to remove 'ancillary' proceedings, such as those seeking subpoenas, while leaving the rest of the underlying case in state court. The court reasoned that because Congress specified that 'only that proceeding may be removed' when no other basis for removal exists, the Department's removal of the subpoena did not open the door for the Boettchers to remove the entire property dispute. Regarding the Boettchers' claim of federal question jurisdiction under § 1331, the court reiterated the long-standing principle that property disputes do not present a federal question merely because the title derives from an act of Congress. As the Boettchers did not challenge the federal government's original conveyance, federal jurisdiction was lacking. Finally, the court affirmed the quashing of the subpoenas, noting that federal courts lack jurisdiction to compel federal officials to comply with subpoenas contrary to valid agency regulations, a principle known as the Touhy doctrine.
The decision clarifies that federal officer removal is a narrow tool limited to ancillary proceedings and does not expand federal jurisdiction over underlying state-law disputes. Parties cannot use the removal of a subpoena involving a federal employee to drag an entire state property case into federal court. The case was remanded to Illinois state court for the property dispute, while the subpoena enforcement proceeding remains in federal court. The decision also reinforces that federal courts will not enforce subpoenas against federal employees that violate agency regulations.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download