Despite its formal status as promulgator of federal-court rules of practice and procedure, the Supreme Court is a suboptimal rule interpreter, as recent groundbreaking but flawed rules decisions illustrate. Scholars have proposed abstention mechanisms to constrain the Court in certain rule-interpretation contexts, but these mechanisms disable the Court from performing its core adjudicatory functions of dispute resolution and law interpretation. This Article urges a different solution: bring the rulemakers to the Court. It argues that the Rules Committees—those bodies primarily responsible for studying the rules and drafting rule amendments—should take up a modest amicus practice in rules cases to offer the Court information that may improve its decision making in rules cases. The Article explores the possible forms of such a role and articulates guiding norms for its structure, timing, and content.
Issue 1
(Un)limiting Administrative Review: Wind River, Section 2401(A), and the Right to Challenge Federal Agencies
In eight federal circuits, a person’s right to sue a federal agency may be time-barred before it exists—an odd result made possible by the Wind River doctrine. This Note argues that the doctrine is wrong as a matter of interpretation, despite its widespread acceptance.
Jettisoning “Jurisdictional”: Asserting the Substantive Nature of Supremacy Clause Immunity
Under the doctrine of Supremacy Clause immunity, federal officers generally cannot be prosecuted for state crimes committed while carrying out their duties. This much is well established. What has escaped the notice of the courts, however, is the nature of the immunity. Though they refer to it as “jurisdictional,” it is in fact substantive.
This is no small error. There is a difference between substantive and jurisdictional immunities, yet the current characterization of Supremacy Clause immunity glosses over it. And this distinction runs even deeper: Substantive immunities go to the merits of a case, which in turn relate to the legislature’s power to enact laws. Jurisdictional immunities, by contrast, implicate only a court’s power to rule on the merits.
The extent of this mischaracterization has been missed because it is so deeply seated. There are three contributors to this problem: the Supreme Court’s once-expansive conception of jurisdiction, the lack of a unifying theory of immunities, and the nature of Supremacy Clause immunity’s founding cases.
This mischaracterization presents fundamental semantic difficulties, as well as four practical risks of harm to the parties. First, a court may incorrectly raise the immunity sua sponte. Second, a court may improperly refuse to consider matters of equity or fairness in determining whether the immunity applies. Third, a court may unduly revisit a state judgment on the immunity’s applicability. Finally, double jeopardy would not protect the officer should a court dismiss the prosecution based on Supremacy Clause immunity.