Federal jurisdiction—the “power” of the court—is seen as something separate and unique. As such, it has a litany of special effects that define jurisdictionality as the antipode of nonjurisdictionality. The resulting conceptualization is that jurisdictionality and nonjurisdictionality occupy mutually exclusive theoretical and doctrinal space. In a recent Article in Stanford Law Review, I refuted this rigid dichotomy of jurisdictionality and nonjurisdictionality by explaining that nonjurisdictional rules can be “hybridized” with any—or even all—of the attributes of jurisdictionality.

This Article drops the other shoe. Jurisdictional rules can be hybridized, too. Jurisdictional rules can be hybridized with nonjurisdictional features in myriad forms. The result is a far more complex world than what the simple—but fallacious—dichotomy of jurisdictionality and nonjurisdictionality suggests.

Hybridization enables parties and courts to regulate jurisdiction in normatively desirable ways. Court control may re-establish power to inject considerations of fairness into jurisdictional issues. Party control may alleviate some of the costs of jurisdictionality. Further, hybridization can achieve these regulatory rewards while simultaneously retaining a healthy, formal distinction between jurisdictionality and nonjurisdictionality. The result is a cleaner, truer, and more useful conceptualization of jurisdiction.