Source: https://www.povertylaw.org/clearinghouse/fpmd/chapter2/section9
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 03:49:19+00:00

Document:
1. See, e.g., Robb v. Connolly, 111 U.S. 624 (1884); Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S.130, 136 (1876); see generally Martin H. Redish & John Muench, Adjudication of Federal Causes of Action in State Court, 75 Mich. L. Rev. 311 (1976).
2. Yellow Freight System, Incorporated v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820, 822 (1990). Congress may, of course, expressly permit state courts to entertain certain federal claims. State courts are authorized to hear claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 626(c)(1), and Title VIII actions involving housing discrimination, 42 U.S.C. § 3613(a). State courts have concurrent jurisdiction over Title VII claims. Yellow Freight System, Incorporated, 494 U.S. at 820.
3. Gulf Offshore Company v. Mobil Oil Corporation, 453 U.S. 473, 477–78 (1981). Closely related to this concept is a federal statute's complete preemption of state law causes of action, thereby effectively vesting the federal court with exclusive jurisdiction over the claim. See, e.g., Aetna Health Incorporated v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 209 (2004) (discussing "pre-emptive force" of ERISA and Labor Management Relations Act).
4. Gulf Offshore Company, 453 U.S. at 483–84. See also Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U.S. 255, 271 (1982) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (discussing considerations of uniformity, federal expertise, and federal hospitality to federal claims).
5. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1333-1334, 1338. Congress may also vest exclusive federal jurisdiction over federal claims in the statute creating the claim. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 78aa (federal securities law).
6. See, e.g., General Investment Company v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company, 260 U.S. 261, 286-88 (1922).
7. See Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729, 731 (2009); Patsy v. Board of Regents of Florida, 457 U.S. 496, 506-07 (1982); Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1, 3 n.1 (1980).
8. Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, 396 U.S. 229 (1969).
9. See, e.g., Miles v. FERM Enterprises, Incorporated, 627 P.2d 564 (1981); see also DeHorney v. Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association, 879 F.2d 459, 463 (9th Cir. 1989) (state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over Section 1981 suits); Blount v. Stroud, 904 N.E.2d. 1, 232 Ill. 2d 302, 328 (2009) (holding that state circuit courts have jurisdiction to hear 1981 claims); People ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Cook Development Company, 274 Ill. App. 3d 175, 185 (Ill App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1995) (concluding Section 1982 actions may be brought against state); Barber v. Rancho Mortgage & Investment Corporation, 26 Cal. App. 4th 1819, 1833 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1994) (entertaining Section 1982 claim in state court for housing discrimination). Cf. Filipino Accountants Association Incorporated v. State Board of Accountancy, 204 Cal. Rptr. 913, 915 n.4 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984) (assuming state court jurisdiction over Section 1981 actions); State v. Sebastian, 243 Conn. 115, 160 (Conn. 1997) (suggesting state court's failure to exercise jurisdiction would be violation of Indians' rights under Section 1981); Collins v. Department of Transportation, 208 Ga. App. 53, 56 n.2 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993) (citing Section 1981 as example of state court subject matter jurisdiction over federal law actions). State courts also consistently exercised jurisdiction over actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and alleging conspiracies to deprive individuals of equal protection of the laws, a result which is not surprising considering the common origin of Section 1985 and Section 1983 in the Civil Rights Act of 1871. See, e.g., Rajneesh Foundation International v. McGreer, 734 P.2d 871 (Or. 1987) (allowing Section 1985(3) counterclaim). State courts also assumed the availability of state court jurisdiction over Section 1985(2) claims involving the administration of justice in state courts. See Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents, 711 P.2d 1207 (Ariz. 1985).
10. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990).
12. But see National Private Truck Council, Incorporated v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 515 U.S. 582, 587 n.4 (1995) (“We have never held that state courts must entertain § 1983 suits”) (citations omitted).
13. Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729 (2009). See also Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988) (striking down Wisconsin's notice of claim requirements as applied to Section 1983 claims filed in state court).
14. Haywood, 556 U.S. at 736-37.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 216
 § 206
 § 626
 § 3613
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 78
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1985
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983
 v. 
 v.