removed the case under Section 1442(a)(1), and the district court upheld the removal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that Section 1442(a)(1) permits removal only where the defendant “exclude[s] the possibility that the suit is based on acts or conduct not justified by his federal duty.” Morgan v. Willingham, 383 F.2d 139, 141 (1967). The court noted that “[t]he only undisputed evidence was that the only contact the appellees had with the appellant occurred within the walls of the penitentiary.” Id. at 141-42. Based on its reading of Section 1442(a)(1), the Tenth Circuit found such evidence to be insufficient to support removal. The Supreme Court rejected the Tenth Circuit’s narrow reading of Section 1442(a)(1). See Willingham, 395 U.S. at 407 (<HOLDING>) (quotation omitted). The Supreme Court
holding that the federal officer removal statute is not narrow or limited  holding that health insurer contracted with fehba was not acting under a federal agency within the meaning of the federal officer removal statute holding that any defect in removal procedure must be cured within the 30day removal period or it is fatal to the removal and defendants failure to attach exhibits to the notice of removal within that time required remand holding that just because a claim implicates a federal issue or involves construction of federal law does not necessarily give rise to a federal question and confer removal jurisdiction on a federal court holding that the farr act is expressly limited to claims arising out of a final order of removal and does not confer any legal rights outside of the removal setting