One of the primary functions of the law of federal jurisdiction is to allocate cases between state and federal courts. Commentators agree that the law of allocation is troubled, in that it frequently fails to reconcile important federal or state interests in having cases litigated in federal or state court. The body of doctrine also is overly complex, often indeterminate, and rests too heavily on the mutable concept of parity. The root of the problem is "either-or" thinking the almost universal understanding that a case should be litigated in state court or federal court, but not in both. This Article argues hat the solution to the problems posed by either-or thinking is a multijurisdictional approach: Men interest analysis so requires, cases should be litigated in both the state and federal court systems. While this proposal may seem novel, a central point of this Article is that multijurisdictional solutions already are in common use-collateral review and certification providing just two examples. The Article moves in five steps. First, it elaborates upon the problems posed by either-or thinking. Second, it describes a variety of multijurisdictional solutions already in use. Third, it identifies broad consensus on a limited set of interests that justify litigation in state or federal court. Fourth, the Article explains that a set of deep principles operating under the "surface" doctrine already allocates most cases between state and federal courts as interest analysis would require, using the multijurisdictional approach when necessary to accommodate those interests. Finally, recognizing that under existing doctrine the allocation of cases between state and federal courts does not accord entirely with interest analysis, the Article specifies what reform is necessary. The Article concludes by weighing the costs and benefits of the multijurisdictional approach, arguing that its virtues-including greater predictability, avoidance of costly jurisdictional wrangling, the accommodation of important state and federal interests, and greater coherence in the law-outweigh any additional costs that may be incurred.
