In a case that began as a property line dispute between neighbors in Illinois, the Seventh Circuit addressed complex jurisdictional questions arising from the federal officer removal statute. Robert Barker sued his neighbors, Edward and Beverly Boettcher, in state court over land where the Boettchers had allegedly built a garage. During the litigation, the Boettchers served subpoenas on Department of Agriculture employees seeking farm-acreage documents related to Barker's property.
When the Department informed the Boettchers that its employees would not comply with the subpoenas due to federal regulations, the agency removed only the subpoena proceeding to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, the federal officer removal statute. The Boettchers then attempted to remove the entire case to federal court, claiming federal question jurisdiction based on federal land ordinances from 1785, federal surveys from the 1800s, and an original federal deed from 1851.
The district court retained jurisdiction over the subpoena matter but remanded the property dispute to state court. The court later granted summary judgment for the Department of Agriculture and quashed the subpoenas. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit confirmed its authority to review the remand order because the Boettchers had invoked federal officer jurisdiction, citing the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore.
The appeals court rejected the Boettchers' argument that the Department's removal of the subpoena proceeding opened the door to federal jurisdiction over the entire case. The court emphasized that § 1442(d) explicitly states that when removal is sought for ancillary proceedings like subpoenas, 'only that proceeding may be removed to the district court' absent another basis for removal.
Regarding the Boettchers' federal question jurisdiction claim, the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed established precedent that property disputes do not present federal questions 'merely because one of the parties has derived his title under an act of Congress.' The court noted that something more, such as a challenge to the federal government's original conveyance, would be required for federal jurisdiction.
The court also upheld the district court's decision to quash the subpoenas, noting that the Boettchers had conceded both in district court and on appeal that the state court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the subpoenas against federal employees, making the federal court's action mandatory under established precedent.