Bar groups have blocked every effort to end federal diversity jurisdiction.

Evidence

Congress has sought to ease caseload pressures on federal district and appeals courts by increasing the number of courts and judges. For example, the number of federal district court judges has increased from 241 in 1960 to 677 in 2018. Some scholars and jurists, most notably former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, proposed reducing the caseloads of federal district and appeals courts by eliminating their diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. They insist that state courts today treat residents and nonresidents evenhandedly, so that the original justification for the diversity jurisdiction—avoiding bias against nonresidents in state courts—no longer exists. Opposing this change have been the American Bar Association and various trial lawyers’ organizations, who argue that federal courts do a better job of dispensing justice than do state courts. Thus far, these groups have blocked all efforts to curtail federal jurisdiction over diversity cases. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 327

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to why diversity jurisdiction originally existed (avoiding state bias against nonresidents) discussed in ch13 of this same book. — connects to: New civil rights statutes drove a surge in federal discrimination filings. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 337; Lobbying over forum quality blocks abolition of federal diversity jurisdiction.