Federal jurisdiction, based upon controversies between citizens of different States or between States and foreign nations, arises from Article III of the U.S. Constitution. At the time this research was conducted, the three most prominent proposals pertinent to Federal court diversity jurisdiction were to abolish diversity jurisdiction, bar in-State plaintiffs from initiating diversity actions, and raise the Federal amount-in-controversy requirement from $10,000 to $50,000. On November 19, 1988, during the final 3 months of this project, the change in amount-in-controversy was adopted as part of the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act. This study examines the impact on State courts of each of these proposals. If Federal diversity jurisdiction is completely abolished in fiscal year 1987, as many as 66,408 new filings would have been added to State courts. The States that would receive a disproportionate number of filings per judge under the abolition proposal would also receive a disproportionate number of filings per judge under the proposal to eliminate the ability of in-State plaintiffs to file in Federal court. Raising the Federal jurisdiction limit to $50,000 in 1987 would have transferred an estimated 25,810 Federal diversity filings to State courts. Data for each proposal are presented for each State. 30 tables, 27 figures, 49 footnotes.