The article argues that the historical development of officer-removal provisions in the United States demonstrates Congress's broad constitutional authority to grant federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving federal officers, even when state laws are applied. This authority, rooted in the need to protect federal interests and ensure fair trials, has been upheld by the Supreme Court in cases such as Tennessee v. Davis. The article critiques the modern interpretation of these provisions, suggesting that historical evidence supports a broader understanding of congressional power to enact removal statutes without requiring a substantive federal defense.
David N. Goldman (Wed,) studied this question.