Statutory interpleader creates federal jurisdiction for minimal diversity state law actions in which a plaintiff seeks to settle rival claims to property. Armed with nationwide service of process, she can drag all potential claimants into one proceeding, thereby protecting herself against inconsistent or multiple liability. The Supreme Court has assumed that the twin aims apply in statutory interpleader actions. So have lower federal courts.
But nationwide service of process creates a problem. Why is uniformity with a forum state court important when the forum state court could never have entertained the action, because there was no personal jurisdiction over the defendant?
(Parallel posted on Prawfsblawg.)