Why was the decision to assign jurisdiction over controversies between citizens of different states to the Supreme Court significant? a. It meant that the state courts, rather than the federal judiciary, would ultimately become the primary venue for resolving disputes. b. It meant that the federal judiciary, rather than the state courts, would ultimately become the primary venue for resolving disputes. c. It meant that courts at both the state and federal levels would become irrelevant to the operating of the American political system. d. It meant that the state courts would be allowed to use the power of judicial review on cases involving economic disputes.

Question

Conner Baxter

Law

13 May, 20:13

Why was the decision to assign jurisdiction over controversies between citizens of different states to the Supreme Court significant? a. It meant that the state courts, rather than the federal judiciary, would ultimately become the primary venue for resolving disputes. b. It meant that the federal judiciary, rather than the state courts, would ultimately become the primary venue for resolving disputes. c. It meant that courts at both the state and federal levels would become irrelevant to the operating of the American political system. d. It meant that the state courts would be allowed to use the power of judicial review on cases involving economic disputes.

+5

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Jovanny Conley · Answer 1

It meant that the federal judiciary, rather than the state courts, would ultimately become the primary venue for resolving disputes.

Explanation:

The decision to assign jurisdiction over controversies between citizens of different states to the Supreme Court meant that the federal judiciary, rather than the state courts, would ultimately become the primary venue for resolving disputes.