Berk v. Choy · ¶33
Because Rule 8 and § 6853 answer the same question, Rule 8 governs so long as it is valid under the Rules Enabling Act, which requires that Federal Rules be procedural rather than substantive. 28 U. S. C. § 2072(b) (“Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right”). The line between substance and procedure is hazy, and we draw it differently in different contexts. See Hanna, 380 U. S., at 471 (“The line between `substance' and `procedure' shifts as the legal context changes”). For purposes of the Rules Enabling Act, we use a modest test: whether the Federal Rule “really regulates procedure.” Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U. S. 1, 14 (1941). Or put differently, “[w]hat matters is what the Rule itself regulates: If it governs only `the manner and the means' by which the litigants' rights are `enforced,' it is valid.” Shady Grove, 559 U. S., at 407 (plurality opinion)…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.