CRITICIZING THIS ASSUMPTION, THE AUTHOR TRACES FEDERALISM ARGUMENTS ADVANCED DURING THE PAST TWO CENTURIES BY LITIGATORS SEEKING TO HAVE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIMS ADJUDICATED IN FEDERAL COURT. HE POINTS OUT THAT, ALTHOUGH THE POLITICAL PERSUASION AND ECONOMIC STATUS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGANTS HAVE VARIED WITH THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE RIGHTS INVOKED, ONE FACTOR HAS REMAINED CONSTANT - INTERESTS AND GROUPS SEEKING EXPANSIVE DEFINITION AND VIGOROUS APPLICATION OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS HAVE SOUGHT A FEDERAL JUDICIAL FORUM WHILE THEIR OPPONENTS, ATTEMPTING TO NARROW FEDERAL RIGHTS AND WEAKEN THEIR IMPLEMENTATION, HAVE EMPHASIZED THE FACIALLY NEUTRAL FEDERALISM CONCERNS WHICH ARGUE IN FAVOR OF STATE JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. BY COMBINING THIS HISTORICAL PATTERN WITH AN EXPLANATION OF INSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS, THE AUTHOR ATTEMPTS TO CAST DOUBT ON THE PROPRIETY OF DECIDING FORUM ALLOCATION ISSUES UNDER A MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION OF PARITY. CONCENTRATING ON AN INSTITUTIONAL COMPARISON AT THE TRIAL LEVEL, DISCLAIMING ANY INTENT TO CAST ASPERSIONS ON THE GOOD FAITH OF STATE JUDGES, AND RECOGNIZING THAT BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL TRIAL JUDGES HAVE ROOTS IN THE COMMUNITIES THEY SERVE, THREE SETS OF REASONS ARE PRESENTED TO SUPPORT A PREFERENCE FOR A FEDERAL TRIAL FORUM. FIRST, THE LEVEL OF TECHNICAL COMPETENCE WHICH THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT IS LIKELY TO BRING TO THE LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED GENERALLY WILL BE SUPERIOR TO THAT OF A GIVEN STATE TRIAL FORUM. SECOND, THERE ARE SEVERAL FACTORS, WHICH TOGETHER MAKE UP A COURT'S 'PSYCHOLOGICAL SET,' THAT RENDER IT MORE LIKELY THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM WILL SUCCEED IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT. FINALLY, THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY'S INSULATION FROM MAJORITARIAN PRESSURES MAKES FEDERAL COURT STRUCTURALLY PREFERABLE TO STATE TRIAL COURT AS A FORUM IN WHICH TO CHALLENGE POWERFUL LOCAL INTERESTS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)... ELW