Will Bode

That's what it is to amend your complaint. And so if we just look at this complaint, this amended complaint, as if it were the complaint, there's no business federal jurisdiction.

That's what it is to amend your complaint. And so if we just look at this complaint, this amended complaint, as if it were the complaint, there's no business federal jurisdiction.

Yeah, it's gamesmanship adjacent. I mean, I think the... Just gamesmanship, right? Well, it's hard to figure out exactly what the game is. Because it's not like you get to go back to state court and then get your federal claims back or something. You got to go back to state court only by getting rid of all the federal claims. So it's quite... You pay a price to go back to state court.

Yeah, it's gamesmanship adjacent. I mean, I think the... Just gamesmanship, right? Well, it's hard to figure out exactly what the game is. Because it's not like you get to go back to state court and then get your federal claims back or something. You got to go back to state court only by getting rid of all the federal claims. So it's quite... You pay a price to go back to state court.

I think the gamesmanship would have to be in a case like this where it's ambiguous whether something is a federal claim or not. The idea would be, I guess, that you kind of profligately plead your quasi-federal claims. And then if you get caught, you take them out. And so you can afford to kind of fly a little closer to Grable. But it just doesn't seem very realistic.

I think the gamesmanship would have to be in a case like this where it's ambiguous whether something is a federal claim or not. The idea would be, I guess, that you kind of profligately plead your quasi-federal claims. And then if you get caught, you take them out. And so you can afford to kind of fly a little closer to Grable. But it just doesn't seem very realistic.

It's not a huge gain from doing that. If you get caught, you have to get delayed in this like back and forth removal thing, which plaintiffs don't really like to do.

It's not a huge gain from doing that. If you get caught, you have to get delayed in this like back and forth removal thing, which plaintiffs don't really like to do.

Yeah, I think I think they just have an instinct that if you're doing stuff like that, it's probably gamesmanship. But that's what I'm saying. Like sometimes take the obvious example. You settle a case. takes the case away from the judge, and the judge is usually like, okay, fine, it's settled.

Yeah, I think I think they just have an instinct that if you're doing stuff like that, it's probably gamesmanship. But that's what I'm saying. Like sometimes take the obvious example. You settle a case. takes the case away from the judge, and the judge is usually like, okay, fine, it's settled.

Right, but I think part of the thought process is also, we don't really belong in the federal forum in the first place. We could waste our time, because this Grable test is very complicated, We could waste our time in, like, a series of appeals, a decision about, like, are these elements enough to satisfy the Grable test that everybody knows is kind of muddy?

Right, but I think part of the thought process is also, we don't really belong in the federal forum in the first place. We could waste our time, because this Grable test is very complicated, We could waste our time in, like, a series of appeals, a decision about, like, are these elements enough to satisfy the Grable test that everybody knows is kind of muddy?

Or we could just say, screw it, it's not worth fighting about it. Yeah. Okay. One other interesting thing. When the speaker granted the case, the respondent added another question to the case, which was whether we should just overturn this entire Grable idea that state law claims that contain federal law stuff... can be in federal court at all, which also does have an originalist.

Or we could just say, screw it, it's not worth fighting about it. Yeah. Okay. One other interesting thing. When the speaker granted the case, the respondent added another question to the case, which was whether we should just overturn this entire Grable idea that state law claims that contain federal law stuff... can be in federal court at all, which also does have an originalist.

There's a originalist family of scholars behind it. I bet you like that, right? You like that. I don't think so. I think it's Justice Thomas' view. In the early 20th century, Justice Holmes said the test should just be what is the law that creates the cause of action. Ashley and I will get drinks at some point, and he'll try to convince me about why he's right.

There's a originalist family of scholars behind it. I bet you like that, right? You like that. I don't think so. I think it's Justice Thomas' view. In the early 20th century, Justice Holmes said the test should just be what is the law that creates the cause of action. Ashley and I will get drinks at some point, and he'll try to convince me about why he's right.

I'm not sure it's right, because in 1875, when the federal jurisdiction statute was created, its stated purpose was to expand federal question jurisdiction to the maximum permitted by the Constitution. And I'm not convinced that the test turns on who created the cause of action because in 1875, it was like the pre-Erie world where we didn't think about causes of action the same way we do now.

I'm not sure it's right, because in 1875, when the federal jurisdiction statute was created, its stated purpose was to expand federal question jurisdiction to the maximum permitted by the Constitution. And I'm not convinced that the test turns on who created the cause of action because in 1875, it was like the pre-Erie world where we didn't think about causes of action the same way we do now.

So it's like a rule, a formalist rule, but I'm not sure it's one that actually has original spaces. But in any case, the court says... You're unpredictable, just like the podcast. I try to pigeonhole you, but... And the argument did not get a lot of uptake. Would you be the swing justice on the court? In what? I don't know the question. Versus Anderson, I would have been the legislator.

So it's like a rule, a formalist rule, but I'm not sure it's one that actually has original spaces. But in any case, the court says... You're unpredictable, just like the podcast. I try to pigeonhole you, but... And the argument did not get a lot of uptake. Would you be the swing justice on the court? In what? I don't know the question. Versus Anderson, I would have been the legislator.