opinion: DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge:
  Eraine Beeman and several other residents of the Tahoe City Trailer Park (appellants) filed suit in California state court on January 29, 1985 against six federal officers in their official capacities. No state or local official or agency was sued. Appellants alleged that they were being improperly evicted from their trailer homes in the Tahoe City Trailer Park. The Park is located on federal land. Appellants sought compensation under federal and state law.
  On February 11, 1985 the government removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government on claims brought by the appellants under state law, and dismissed the appellants’ federal claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
  DISCUSSION
  The only defendants in this case are the federal officers, each of whom was alleged to have been acting in his official capacity. United States officials, while acting in their official capacities, enjoy sovereign immunity, and a state court may not entertain an action against them unless their immunity has been waived by consenting to suit or unless the official has exceeded his statutory or constitutional authority. Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949); Aminoil U.S.A., Inc. v. California State Water Resources Control Board, 674 F.2d 1227, 1233 (9th Cir.1982). Neither exception applies here. Thus, the state court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
  At the time this case was filed in state court, a federal court was without jurisdiction over a suit removed to it from state court if the state court from which it was removed lacked subject matter jurisdiction, even though the federal court would have had jurisdiction had the suit been brought there originally. Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382, 389, 59 S.Ct. 292, 295, 83 L.Ed. 235 (1938); Dyer v. Greif Bros., Inc., 766 F.2d 398, 399 (9th Cir.1985); Aminoil, 674 F.2d at 1232. This rule was changed for cases commenced after June 19, 1986, the date 28 U.S.C. § 1441, titled “Actions Removable Generally” was amended. Section 1441(e) now provides:
  The court to which such civil action is removed is not precluded from hearing and determining any claim in such civil action because the State court from which such civil action is removed did not have jurisdiction over that claim.
  This amendment does not apply to the present case, however, because this action was commenced in California state court on January 29, 1985, prior to the enactment of the amendment. See Pub.L. 99-336 § 3(b) (“The amendment made by this section shall apply with respect to claims in civil actions commenced in State courts on or after the date of the enactment of this section.”); see also Bradley, Arant, Rose & White v. United States, 802 F.2d 1323, 1325 (11th Cir.1986) (applying pre-amendment rule to case decided after, but commenced prior to, enactment of the amendment, without explicitly discussing amendment); Federal Land Bank of Omaha v. Duschen Farms, Inc., 650 F.Supp. 729, 732 (N.D.Iowa 1986) (applying pre-amendment rule to case decided after, but commenced prior to, enactment of the amendment, noting “that new 28 U.S.C. § 1441(e) is inapplicable since this action was commenced before June 19, 1986.”).
  CONCLUSION
  The state court from which this case was removed lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The case was commenced in state court prior to the amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The new rule for removal jurisdiction prescribed by section 1441(e) does not apply to this case. The judgment of the district court, therefore, is vacated in its entirety, and this case is remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
  VACATED and REMANDED.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court support the decision of an administrative law judge? Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".