{"title":"Unpuzzling Complete Preemption: Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson After Two Decades in the Circuit Courts","authors":"Anthony Salzetta","doi":"10.58948/2331-3528.2076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003), established the modern complete preemption doctrine—a method of finding removal jurisdiction by way of federal defense. The decision was met immediately with a great degree of confusion and critique by scholars concerned with the doctrine’s theoretical foundation (or lack thereof) and the potential disarray in its prospective execution by lower courts.","PeriodicalId":82250,"journal":{"name":"Pace law review","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pace law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.58948/2331-3528.2076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003), established the modern complete preemption doctrine—a method of finding removal jurisdiction by way of federal defense. The decision was met immediately with a great degree of confusion and critique by scholars concerned with the doctrine’s theoretical foundation (or lack thereof) and the potential disarray in its prospective execution by lower courts.