State Power To Define Jurisdiction

States should have broader authority to declinejurisdiction over federal claims. The normativeconsiderations supporting this doctrine of "reverseabstention" have been developed in previous work. Butwhat of the Constitution? The traditional reading,reflected in existing precedent, asserts that the SupremacyClause, Article III, and perhaps Article I operate togetherto create an inflexible obligation for state courts to hearfederal claims.

This reading is misguided. TheSupremacy Clause contains no jurisdictional obligation ofits own force, but only gives supreme effect to other validlyenacted federal laws. And no other clause provides theauthority to impose such an obligation on the states.Suggestions to the contrary are based on an overlycramped version of originalism that fails to account for theexigencies of constitutional compromise and ratification.