In the case of Tafflin et al. v. Levitt et al., 1989, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over civil suits arising under federal laws unless Congress provides otherwise explicitly or implicitly. The plaintiffs, Tafflin and others, were sued in a Maryland State court by Levitt and others for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). They argued that only federal courts had jurisdiction over such cases based on their interpretation of RICO's language and legislative history as well as principles of judicial administration. However, both the trial court and Maryland’s highest appellate court rejected this argument. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it affirmed these decisions stating there was no clear evidence from Congress indicating an intent to limit jurisdiction solely to federal courts for civil RICO claims.

In the dissenting opinion for TAFFLIN et al. v. LEVITT et al., Justice Stevens argued that state courts should not have concurrent jurisdiction over federal criminal prosecutions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). He contended that such a decision undermines the uniformity of federal law enforcement, as it allows states to interpret and apply federal laws differently than intended by Congress or interpreted by Federal Courts. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential conflicts between state and federal authorities in terms of prosecutorial priorities, resources allocation, plea bargaining policies etc., which could lead to confusion and inefficiency in law enforcement efforts against organized crime. Lastly, he pointed out historical precedents where exclusive jurisdiction was given to Federal Courts for enforcing certain types of crimes due to their national significance.