In the case of Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) v. Ticktin et al., 1988, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a dispute over whether FSLIC could sue in federal court to recover on state law claims. The defendants argued that FSLIC's suit was not within "federal jurisdiction" because it involved only state law issues. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and ruled in favor of FSLIC. It held that when Congress created FSLIC as part of New Deal legislation during Great Depression, it intended for all suits brought by or against FSLIC to be heard in federal courts regardless if they were based on state or federal laws due to its national importance in maintaining public confidence in banking system after widespread bank failures during depression era.

In the dissenting opinion for Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation v. Ticktin et al., Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to allow federal courts to hear state law claims in cases where a federal agency is acting as receiver was misguided. He contended that this interpretation of jurisdictional statutes could potentially flood federal courts with litigation, undermining their ability to handle other important matters. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential for inconsistent interpretations of state laws by different federal judges across various jurisdictions. This inconsistency could lead to confusion and unpredictability in legal outcomes, which would be detrimental both for litigants and for the development of coherent legal principles at a national level.