Because this case was resolved on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the question below was “not whether [Skinner] will ultimately prevail” on his procedural due process claim, see Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232, 236 (1974), but whether his complaint was sufficient to cross the federal court’s threshold, see Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U. S. 506, 514 (2002). Skinner’s complaint is not a model of the careful drafter’s art, but under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint need not pin plaintiff’s claim for relief to a precise legal theory. Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires only a plausible “short and plain” statement of the plaintiff’s claim, not an exposition of his legal argument. See 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure §1219, pp. 277–278 (3d ed. 2004 and Supp. 2010).

Yet neither the federal government nor any other legal commentator has previously identified the way in which the very features of the case that contribute to its political salience also require that it be dismissed for lack of statutory subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has placed limits on statutory subject-matter jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions in which a state seeks a declaration that a state statute is not preempted by federal law—precisely the relief sought in Virginia v. Sebelius. These limits insulate federal courts from the strong political forces surrounding lawsuits that seek federal court validation of state nullification statutes. This Essay identifies these heretofore neglected limits, shows why they demand dismissal of Virginia v. Sebelius, and explains why it is appropriate for federal courts to be closed to this type of suit.

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. . .

Mr. Goldstein is returning to the small practice he ran with his wife, Amy Howe, out of their Washington home before joining Akin Gump five years ago. But the new Goldstein Howe & Russell “will have a different profile than the old one,” Mr. Goldstein says. “The old firm did more than half its work pro bono, and this one won’t.”

Ms. Howe will continue to focus on pro bono work, while Mr. Goldstein will primarily practice commercial litigation. He says he the move was necessitated by conflicts between one of his principal clients and other Akin Gump clients; one of his key clients, eager to retain Mr. Goldstein’s services, agreed to finance his move back to a small practice.

Mr. Goldstein won’t identify the client, but he currently has a half dozen cases pending at the Supreme Court, as well as a specialty that grew out of a favorite pastime–poker. Mr. Goldstein is representing poker interests against state regulators seeking to put the game out of business.