Abstract

 
 

Footnotes (438)



 


 



Rejecting the Touchstone: Complete Preemption and Congressional Intent after Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson


Margaret Tarkington


Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law


South Carolina Law Review, Vol. 59, p. 225, 2008

Abstract:     
The paper examines complete preemption - a jurisdictional doctrine that allows for removal based on a federal preemption defense contrary to the well-pleaded complaint rule. The doctrine was expanded by the Supreme Court in 2003 in Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson. This paper explores efficiency, separation of powers, and federalism problems created by Anderson, both generally and in the context of a specific statutory scheme - the Carmack Amendment. The paper then offers a new framework, modeled on concurrent jurisdiction case law, that ensures reliance on congressional intent but still allows a narrowly defined area for the judiciary to provide federal defensive removal where necessary to effectuate specific congressional purposes.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 72

Keywords: complete preemption, federal courts, well-pleaded complaint rule, civil procedure, separation of powers, federalism, removal

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: February 6, 2008  

Suggested Citation

Tarkington, Margaret, Rejecting the Touchstone: Complete Preemption and Congressional Intent after Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson. South Carolina Law Review, Vol. 59, p. 225, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1090655

Contact Information

Margaret Tarkington (Contact Author)
Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law ( email )
530 West New York Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
United States

Feedback to SSRN (Beta)


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 797
Downloads: 54
Download Rank: 193,549
Footnotes:  438

© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.328 seconds