The Appellants argue that Congress’s use of the permissive “may” instead of obligatory “must” demonstrates an intention to sustain concurrent jurisdiction. While it is true that some courts have found concurrent jurisdiction because of the use of the permissive “may,” the statues at issue in such cases did not contain the more potent language contained in this statute: “original exclusive jurisdiction.” That difference makes the analysis in those cases inapplicable.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The party that appealed argued that Congress’s use of “may” instead of “must” in the law shows that it meant to allow two or more courts to decide the case. Although some courts have decided cases following that argument, those cases did not have the stronger statutory language with the words “original exclusive jurisdiction,” which means that only one particular court has the power to hear the case when it is first brought to trial.