THE GROWING FEDERAL COURT CASELOAD IS ATTRIBUTABLE NOT ONLY TO AN INCREASINGLY LITIGIOUS SOCIETY, BUT ALSO TO CONGRESS' EXPANSION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURTS. EFFORTS ARE UNDERWAY TO BRING THE PROBLEM UNDER CONTROL, THE MAJOR THRUST BEING ATTEMPTS TO SHIFT PART OF THE FEDERAL CASELOAD TO THE STATE COURT SYSTEM. FOR EXAMPLE, IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT CONGRESS RETURN ALL WORKERS' COMPENSATION CASES TO THE STATES. MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS PASSED A MEASURE THAT WOULD GREATLY DECREASE THE NUMBER OF DIVERSITY CASES (CASES INVOLVING PARTIES FROM DIFFERENT STATES) IN FEDERAL COURTS. ALTHOUGH OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED TO OUT-AND-OUT RESTRICTIONS ON THE FLOW OF CASES INTO FEDERAL COURTS, THE COURTS THEMSELVES HAVE BEEN WIDENING APPLICATIONS OF THE DOCTRINES OF ABSTENTION AND NONINTERVENTION IN CIVIL CASES AND INCREASINGLY INVOKING THE DOCTRINE OF ADEQUATE STATE GROUNDS IN BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES. THE MOST DRAMATIC EXAMPLE OF THIS RESTRICTION OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS IS FOUND IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HOLDING (STONE V. POWELL, 1976) THAT, ABSENT A SHOWING OF LACK OF OPPORTUNITY FOR FULL LITIGATION IN THE STATE COURTS, STATE PRISONERS ARE NOT GUARANTEED FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF ON THE GROUND THAT EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL WAS OBTAINED UNCONSTITUTIONALLY. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE IMPETUS FOR THIS DECISION WAS PRAGMATISM RATHER THAN PRINCIPLE. THE STATE COURTS HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR WILLINGNESS AND ABILITY TO ASSUME THE DIVERSITY JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS. MORE AND MORE LAWYERS ARE CHOOSING STATE RATHER THAN FEDERAL FORUMS. STATE COURTS ARE DEMONSTRATING A GROWING WILLINGNESS (ESPECIALLY IN CRIMINAL CASES) TO RELY ON STATE CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS AS BASES FOR DECISIONS, EVEN THOUGH PARALLEL FEDERAL GROUNDS EXIST. A 1978 NATIONAL SURVEY FOUND CONSIDERABLE DISSATISFACTION AMONG THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY LEADERS WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE STATE COURTS. IN LIGHT OF INDICATIONS THAT STATE COURTS ARE RETURNING TO JUDICIAL PREEMINENCE, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE COURTS BE FULLY EQUIPPED TO MEET THEIR CHANGING RESPONSIBILITIES. MORE FUNDS, IMPROVED STRUCTURES, BETTER JUDGES, AND INTENSE SCRUTINY AND SUPPORT FROM THE BAR ARE NEEDED. REFERENCES ARE FOOTNOTED. (LKM)