Summary

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia Tafflin v. Levitt — Concurring Opinion

The subsequent discussion makes it entirely clear, however, that what the Court meant by "incompatibility in its exercise arising from the nature of the particular case" was that the particular statute at issue impliedly excluded state-court jurisdiction. "Congress," the Court said, "may, if it sees fit, give to the Federal courts exclusive jurisdiction," which it does "sometimes . . . by express enactment and sometimes by implication."
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia Tafflin v. Levitt — Concurring Opinion

It is perhaps also true that implied preclusion can be established by the fact that a statute expressly mentions only federal courts, plus the fact that state-court jurisdiction would plainly disrupt the statutory scheme. That is conceivably what was meant by the third part of the Gulf Offshore dictum, "clear incompatibility between state-court jurisdiction and federal interests."
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Antonin Scalia Antonin Scalia Tafflin v. Levitt — Concurring Opinion

As the Court holds, the RICO cause of action meets none of the three tests for exclusion of state-court jurisdiction recited in Gulf Offshore. Since that is so, the proposition that meeting any one of the tests would have sufficed is dictum here, as it was there. In my view meeting the second test is assuredly not enough, and meeting the third may not be.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature