Hunter v. United States · ¶126

“Whatever the scope” of this Court's supervisory power, it does not include “the power to . . . circumvent” the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Carlisle v. United States, 517 U. S. 416, 426 (1996); see Tsarnaev, 595 U. S., at 315–316. The Rules Enabling Act establishes a reticulated process for this Court to alter lower courts' procedures. In this process, the Judicial Conference's Rules Committees recommend Rules of practice, procedure, and evidence after an extensive public process, 28 U. S. C. § 2073, so that the Rules “dra[w] on the collective experience of bench and bar,” Mohawk In dustries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U. S. 100, 114 (2009). Then, before the Supreme Court adopts the recommendations as binding rules, it must first transmit them to Congress. §2074. Because this process enables “thorough” consideration of the policy issues, this Court is ill equipped to second- guess…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.