Footnotes (45)



In Defense of Complete Preemption

Paul E. McGreal

University of Dayton School of Law

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

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

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)
University of Dayton School of Law ( email )
300 College Park
Dayton, OH 45469
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 586
Downloads: 61
Download Rank: 228,044
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 apollo2 in 0.281 seconds