Rules Enabling Act (28 U.S.C. § 2072)
“The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts … Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.”
Constitutional Basis
The Act delegates to the Supreme Court (acting through the Judicial Conference and its advisory committees) the authority to promulgate the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
Limitation: Cannot Abridge Substantive Rights
Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. (1941): A rule is valid if it “really regulates procedure.” Courts apply a deferential test — if the rule regulates the judicial process for enforcing rights, it is procedural even if it incidentally affects substantive outcomes.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance (2010): Under Erie, if a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure “answers the question in dispute,” the Federal Rule governs in federal court — the Federal Rule does not violate § 2072 if it is facially applicable and valid. (Plurality applies Sibbach; concurrence applies a different test balancing substantive and procedural effects.)
Erie Connection
The Rules Enabling Act is the statutory anchor for the Erie doctrine: Congress cannot (and did not) give the Supreme Court power to supersede state substantive law through procedural rules. See Federal Courts.