Fourth Circuit Overturns Remand Of Maryland's And South Carolina's Non-AFFF PFAS Lawsuits Against 3M

• Published date: 21 March 2025
• Law Firm: Taft Stettinius & Hollister
• Author: Mr Theodore Motz

The Fourth Circuit overturned the remand of two lawsuits Maryland and South Carolina brought against 3M and other PFAS manufacturers. Maryland v. 3M Co., No. 24-1218, 2025 WL 727831 (4th Cir. Mar. 7, 2025). The ruling expands the reach of the federal officer removal statute, making it easier for certain defendants to remove their cases to federal court.

Maryland and South Carolina each brought two PFAS-related lawsuits against 3M: one involving claims arising from AFFF contamination, and another limited to non-AFFF PFAS claims. 3M removed all of the cases to federal court under the authority of the federal officer removal statute, 28 USC Section 1442. The statute allows agencies, federal officers, and "any person acting under that officer" to transfer cases to federal court. To qualify, a private defendant must plausibly allege three elements: "(1) that it acted under a federal officer, (2) that it has a colorable federal defense, and (3) that the charged conduct was carried out for or in relation to the asserted official authority." Anne Arundel Cnty., Maryland v. BP P.L.C., 94 F.4th 343, 347-48 (4th Cir. 2024) (quoting Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., 31 F.4th 178, 228 (4th Cir. 2022)). The third element is...