Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

The Federal Courts as a Franchise: Rethinking the Justifications for Federal Question Jurisdiction

66 Pages Posted: 18 Jul 2008 Last revised: 13 Jan 2009

Gil Seinfeld

University of Michigan Law School

Date Written: July 17, 2008

Abstract

This article develops a model of the federal courts as a kind of franchising arrangement - a chain of dispute resolution forums with a set of basic characteristics held in common across branches, regardless of the location in which any particular branch sits. It argues, in particular, that federal court practice - in sharp contrast to practice in scattered state courts - is characterized by a high measure of procedural homogeneity, a standardized culture marked by a strong ethic of professionalism, and a bench that exhibits generally high levels of competence in the stuff of judge-craft.

The article urges reorienting our thinking about federal question jurisdiction around the Franchise model and discourages continued reliance on the conventional view - that federal judges are more likely than their state court counterparts to provide evenhanded, uniform, expert adjudication of federal law - to justify the conferral of general federal question jurisdiction on the lower federal courts.

Suggested Citation

Seinfeld, Gil, The Federal Courts as a Franchise: Rethinking the Justifications for Federal Question Jurisdiction (July 17, 2008). California Law Review, 2009. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1162329

Gil Seinfeld (Contact Author)

University of Michigan Law School ( email )

625 South State Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
92
Rank
237,213
Abstract Views
646