Abstract:
Part I of this Comment describes the framework that the Supreme Court has supplied for deciding the applicability of state and federal rules in the contexts of Erie, preemption, and reverse-Erie. Part II explores the lopsided results achieved under the current reverse-Erie paradigm and proposes an explanation for the apparent bias towards the federal sovereign: premature considerations of preemption come into play when state courts decide whether the rule they are examining is substantive or procedural.