Pleading with Congress to Resist the Urge to Overrule Twombly and Iqbal

40 Pages Posted: 21 Jun 2010 Last revised: 18 Aug 2010

See all articles by Michael Robert Huston

Michael Robert Huston

University of Michigan Law School - JD Candidate Author

Date Written: 2010

Abstract

In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court changed the rhetoric of the federal pleading system. Those decisions have been decried by members of the bar, scholars, legislators as judicial activism and a re-writing of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such criticism has led members of both houses of Congress to introduce legislation to overrule the decisions and return to some variation of the “notice pleading” that existed pre-Twombly. This Note argues that both of the current proposals to overrule Twombly and Iqbal are flawed and should be rejected. Although the bills take different approaches to their goal of overruling Twombly and Iqbal, each one would disrupt the careful balance of interests created by the Federal Rules and create intolerable confusion for judges ruling on the often-filed Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Especially because the long term effects of Twombly and Iqbal on federal pleading remain unclear, Congress should avoid a rush to judgment on this important issue.

Keywords: Pleading, Twombly, Iqbal, Legislation, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Suggested Citation

Huston, Michael Robert, Pleading with Congress to Resist the Urge to Overrule Twombly and Iqbal (2010). Michigan Law Review, Vol. 109, 2010. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1627704

Michael Robert Huston (Contact Author)

University of Michigan Law School - JD Candidate Author ( email )

Ann Arbor, MI
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
68
rank
327,267
Abstract Views
390
PlumX Metrics