The Philadelphia DA brought a state-law civil nuisance action against Elon Musk and his PAC, alleging they were engaging in unlawful activities relating to voting and the election (it's the $ 1 million giveaway to people who vote, which the state argues is an illegal lottery). Musk and the PAC removed on two theories:
1) The case arises under under Grable/Gunn because the PAC's activities are First Amendment protected and the case is about the presidential election, which creates a federal issue and federal interest within the state claim. This seems to take a broad perspective on when a federal issue is embedded, as opposed to being a defense or presenting federal concerns. The logic of the removal argument might federalize an assault that happens at the polling place.
2) There is diversity jurisdiction because the DA is not acting as the Commonwealth but in his individual capacity, making him a citizen of Pennsylvania (and Musk and the PAC are not). This argument relies on a distinction between a DA bringing a criminal case and a DA bringing a civil case, although that distinction appears to be about control over enforcement, not about whether a DA enforcing state law ceases to act as the state.
Update: That did not take long. The state filed an emergency motion for remand, asking the court to move quickly because of the looming election. Here is the order remanding and here is a short opinion explaining that 1) the DA acts for the Commonwealth and thus the state (not a citizen) is the party and 2) there is no federal issue that must be resolved or proven for the Commonwealth to prove its claim and the federal "context" (that it surrounds or effects an election) is insufficient for Grable. Musk only sought removal under § 1441, so this order is not reviewable.
