Law Commons^™

The Case For Restricting Diversity Jurisdiction: The Undeveloped Arguments, From The Race To The Bottom To The Substitution Effect, David Crump

David Crump

ABSTRACT The traditional arguments for and against diversity jurisdiction are well established. Abolitionists say that diversity elbows out federal claims, depends upon an enormous and wasteful body of purely procedural law, and is not needed in today’s world to prevent local prejudice. Proponents counter by arguing that diversity still is needed to counteract local prejudice, that claims about waste are exaggerated, and that providing some litigants with a choice of forum is a good thing. But the traditional debate understates the arguments against diversity jurisdiction. There are two types of side effects of diversity that the usual arguments do not …