Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1676022
 


 



Institutional Practice, Procedural Uniformity, and As-Applied Challenges under the Rules Enabling Act


Catherine T. Struve


University of Pennsylvania Law School

September 27, 2011

Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 86, p. 1181, 2010

Abstract:     
Addressing the Supreme Court’s decision last Term in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., this symposium essay focuses on the debate between the plurality and Justice Stevens concerning the availability of as-applied challenges to the validity of rules promulgated under the Rules Enabling Act. Agreeing with Professor Allan Ides’ article in the same symposium, this essay argues that Justice Stevens’ proposed approach strikes a reasonable balance: State-specific as-applied invalidation of a federal rule should be permissible but rare.

A survey of debates over facial and as-applied review in other contexts shows that the choice among facial review, as-applied review, and a combination of the two depends on both the institutional setting and the nature of the constraint that forms the basis for the review. In the context of Enabling Act review of federal rules, as-applied review is not unprecedented, and it has a role to play. Though the rulemakers are attentive to the limits imposed by the Enabling Act, they may not always be able to foresee a rule’s future effects on substantive rights. Admitting the possibility of the occasional as-applied challenge to a rule’s validity permits questions of a rule’s effect on substantive rights to develop in the context of concrete cases, before judges who are likely to have some familiarity with the relevant substantive-law concerns. The information developed in such litigation can inform both a court’s evaluation of the rule’s application in the case before it and future deliberations of the rulemakers.

As-applied challenges can cause uncertainty, can be difficult to resolve, and can impair the nationally uniform application of the federal rules. But the costs of state-specific as-applied review could be controlled by requiring a strong showing before finding a rule invalid as applied. There already exist other features of federal court practice that currently produce significant inter-state procedural variation. And the federal system asks state courts to tolerate similar disuniformity in state procedure.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 60

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: September 13, 2010 ; Last revised: September 27, 2011

Suggested Citation

Struve, Catherine T., Institutional Practice, Procedural Uniformity, and As-Applied Challenges under the Rules Enabling Act (September 27, 2011). Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 86, p. 1181, 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1676022

Contact Information

Catherine T. Struve (Contact Author)
University of Pennsylvania Law School ( email )
3501 Sansom Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 779
Downloads: 98
Download Rank: 158,496

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.844 seconds