In the case of Marcus D. Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The plaintiff, Marcus D. Mims, alleged that Arrow Financial Services violated TCPA by making repeated automated calls to his cell phone without his consent and sought damages in a Florida district court. However, both the district court and 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed his suit on grounds that state courts had exclusive jurisdiction over private actions arising from TCPA violations. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed these decisions stating that nothing in TCPA's language or context purports to deprive federal courts of their general jurisdiction to enforce federal law; hence they can adjudicate claims like those raised by Mims under this act.

In the dissenting opinion for Marcus D. Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, Justice Scalia argued that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not grant federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over suits brought under it. He maintained that state courts also have concurrent jurisdiction unless Congress explicitly provides otherwise in a statute's text or legislative history - neither of which was present in this case according to him. Furthermore, he contended that majority’s interpretation could lead to an unnecessary increase in litigation and burden on federal courts as more cases would be shifted from state to federal level due to perceived advantages of one court system over another by litigants.