3. How does Gunn v. Minton clarify when an interest is substantial for purposes of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331? Does this distinction explain why jurisdiction was found to be present in Grable but not in Empire Healthchoice? Does it support the analysis in T.B.

Harms Co. v. Eliscu, p. 299, supra? For commentary urging that the jurisdictional inquiry consider the nature of the federal interest, see Shapiro,Reflections on the Allocation of Jurisdiction Between State and Federal Courts: A Response to “Reassessingthe Allocation of Judicial Business Between State and Federal Courts,” 78 Va. L. Rev. 1839, 1842

(1992); Wells,Behind the Parity Debate: The Decline of the Legal Process Tradition in the Law of Federal Courts, 71 B.U. L. Rev. 609, 612 (1991).