The discussion rests on the premise that Washington, D.C., and the State capitals are home to governments that differ substantially in concept; scope of authority; and, sometimes, political culture. It notes that the term "judicial federalism" appears in varied contexts and has varies meanings. Subsequent chapters discuss varying opinions regarding the effect of the bifurcated judicial system on individual rights, the role of State courts in adjudicating federally protected rights, the choice of courts that confronts many litigants, and the strategy in trying to select the place for deciding issues. Another chapter examines the ability of State courts to protect liberty by using the State constitutions to provide additional liberties that are not provided by the Federal courts in interpreting the Constitution. A further chapter examines concerns for racism and parochialism that is often latent and is sometimes manifest in courts and notes that these problems are neither unique to the State courts nor bereft of solutions. The analysis concludes with suggestions for future directions for judicial federalism and for policy initiatives that could facilitate and improve it. Footnotes, index, table of cases, and approximately 400 references