Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1024042
 
 

Footnotes (45)



 


 



In Defense of Complete Preemption


Paul E. McGreal


Creighton University School of Law


University of Pennsylvania Law Review, PENNumbra, Vol. 156, p. 147, 2007

Abstract:     
Recent writings by Professors Gil Seinfeld and Trevor Morrison criticize the Supreme Court's complete preemption doctrine as misguided and unconstitutional, respectively. Professor Seinfeld suggests reforming the doctrine around field preemption, and Professor Morrison rejects complete preemption as inconsistent with separation of powers. This response defends the Supreme Court's doctrine as it currently stands: A state law claim arises under federal law (and so may be removed to federal court) when a federal statute both preempts the claim and supplies an exclusive federal remedy. This doctrine is a sensible application of the well-pleaded complaint rule that prevents improper circumvention of federal question jurisdiction.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 10

Keywords: civil procedure, separation of powers, preemption, federal courts, jurisdiction, federalism


Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: October 23, 2007  

Suggested Citation

McGreal, Paul E., In Defense of Complete Preemption. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, PENNumbra, Vol. 156, p. 147, 2007. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1024042

Contact Information

Paul E. McGreal (Contact Author)
Creighton University School of Law ( email )
2500 California Plaza
Omaha, NE 68178
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 597
Downloads: 61
Download Rank: 235,558
Footnotes:  45

© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.282 seconds