Rules Enabling Act

But second, they were like, yeah, but what about venue? If we do your like judicial lottery thing, there is still venue in the statute and the circuits can't change venue.

And the Supreme Court, the Rules Enabling Act, none of that allows you to simply like ignore venue.

Don't worry, that's already been taken care of.

Then you, by the way, for our less legal nerd listeners, it's sort of like standing, but it's standing for the place.

So let's get to our forum shopping problem.

Who actually has the power to just change the rules and say you have to go into a random lottery within the circuit, within the district, I don't know, within the country? Let me introduce you, David, to the Rules Enabling Act.

I know that sounds super exciting to everyone.

Buckle up, everybody.

Buckle up.

Everything in advisory opinions has been leading up to the Rules Enabling Act.

Okay, David, drumroll.

28 U.S.C.

Exactly.

Scalia noted that interpreting Rule 41B as a substantive preclusion rule would arguably violate the Rules Enabling Act, which strictly forbids federal procedural rules from abridging, enlarging or modifying substantive rights.

Therefore, the Maryland state court was required to look at California state preclusion law to determine if the claim was truly dead.

And since California law allowed the suit in another jurisdiction with a longer timer, the case survived.

The Supreme Court provided a step-by-step framework.

First, under Hanna v. Plummer, you ask if there is a valid federal rule of civil procedure or federal statute that directly conflicts with state law.

If there is, the federal rule wins, provided it complies with the Rules Enabling Act.

Meaning it actually regulates procedure and doesn't abridge, enlarge, or modify substantive rights.

But then Congress throws a massive wrench into the machine.

Right, the Rules Enabling Act, or the REA.

This is the statute that authorized the Supreme Court to write the official federal rules of civil procedure.

And the REA explicitly says these new federal rules cannot abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.

You really do.

Hanna revolutionized the Erie doctrine by splitting the analysis into two completely distinct tracks.

You have track one, which is the Rules Enabling Act track, and you have track two, which is the unguided Erie choice under the Rules of Decision Act.

Walk us through how a lawyer or a student actually applies this step by step.

So-

... to the Rules Enabling Act in the civil rules context, which says that the Rules Committee shall report to this court and to Congress rules and, and, and, and give explanatory notes, and nobody has ever thought that the advisory notes are, are binding.

Yeah.

It's absolutely nothing like the Rules Enabling Act or any other statute that we've been able to find regarding an executive agency.

The Rules Enabling Act does not say that there is a power to issue or establish a statement that, uh, regards application of, of the rules.

I think that's just very, very different.

So I think you have, uh, here text that is very unique in the Sentencing Reform Act that is not ha- you don't have to read it against-