ABSTRACT
The overlapping boundaries between Planned Parenthood v. Louisiana and Sojourner v. Roemer manifest the uncertainty surrounding jurisdiction in judicial federalism. Forum shopping for the most favorable court to litigate, the plaintiffs relied on a twofold procedural argument that epitomizes the new judicial federalism. Virginia and like-minded states advocated a judicial federalism in which state high courts were not placed in inferior appellate positions to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court's tendency toward judicial "correctness and uniformity" has animated its jurisprudence, and will continue to do so, talk about a new judicial federalism notwithstanding. n fact the dicta of Casey is symptomatic of the Court attempting to hold the center of power against the centrifugal tendencies of a viable judicial federalism, tendencies which would inevitably reduce the influence of the US Supreme Court in national politics.
