U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART V— PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 131— RULES OF COURTS

28 U.S.C. § 2072

Rules of procedure and evidence; power to prescribe

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals.(b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.(c) Such rules may define when a ruling of a district court is final for the purposes of appeal under section 1291 of this title.(Added Pub. L. 100–702, title IV, § 401(a), Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4648; amended Pub. L. 101–650, title III, §§ 315, 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5115, 5117.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 2072, acts June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 961; May 24, 1949, ch. 139, § 103, 63 Stat. 104; July 18, 1949, ch. 343, § 2, 63 Stat. 446; May 10, 1950, ch. 174, § 2, 64 Stat. 158; July 7, 1958, Pub. L. 85–508, § 12(m), 72 Stat. 348; Nov. 6, 1966, Pub. L. 89–773, § 1, 80 Stat. 1323, authorized the Supreme Court to prescribe rules of civil procedure, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 100–702, §§ 401(a), 407, effective Dec. 1, 1988.

Amendments

1990—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 101–650 added subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

Words “magistrate judges” substituted for “magistrates” in subsec. (a) pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective Dec. 1, 1988, see section 407 of Pub. L. 100–702, set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 2071 of this title.

Applicability to Virgin Islands

Rules of civil procedure promulgated under this section as applicable to the District Court of the Virgin Islands, see section 1615 of Title 48, Territories and Insular Possessions.

Court RulesAdmiralty Rules

The Rules of Practice in Admiralty and Maritime Cases, promulgated by the Supreme Court on Dec. 20, 1920, effective Mar. 7, 1921, as revised, amended, and supplemented, were rescinded, effective July 1, 1966, in accordance with the general unification of civil and admiralty procedure which became effective July 1, 1966. Provision for certain distinctly maritime remedies were preserved however, in the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, Rules A to F, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Appendix to this title. The Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims were subsequently renamed the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,526 cases (253 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sullivan v. DB Investments, Inc. (2011) ca3 · cites it 6× “The Panel further observed that the District Court’s certification order contravened the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072 (b), by extending antitrust remedies not rooted in state substantive law to putative class members.”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011) scotus · cites it 3× “Because Rule 23 cannot be interpreted to “abridge, enlarge or modify any sub stantive right,” 28 U. S. C. §2072 (b), a class cannot be certified on the premise that Wal-Mart will not be entitled to litigate its statutory de fenses to individual claims.”
Ehrheart v. Verizon Wireless (2010) ca3 · cites it 8× “See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2072 , 2074. [4] Thus, when Congress enacted the Clarification Act and specified that it applied to "any action, other than an action which has become final," Pub.”
Houston v. Lack (1988) scotus · cites it 4× “" When we adopted Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure we delayed, as required by law, their effective date until 90 days after they were "reported to Congress by the Chief Justice," 28 U. S. C. § 2072 , so that Congress might consider whether it wished to…”
Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2010) ca9 · cites it 7× “" 28 U.S.C. § 2072 (b). . The dissent also argues that Wal-Mart "has a statutory right, recognized by the Supreme Court, to prove that its actions against individual employees were not discriminatory,” which the dissent understands to mean that the district “court must allow up…”
Washington v. Ryan (2016) ca9 · cites it 6× “2007) (en banc) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2072 (a)). The Rules Enabling Act also established a committee to evaluate and propose amendments to the Rules.”
O'NEAL v. Price (2008) ca9 · cites it 4× “The Sixth Circuit held that Rule 24(a)(5) conflicts with § 1915(a)(3), but that the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072 (b), [3] requires courts to follow Rule 24(a)(5) notwithstanding this conflict.”
Henderson v. United States (1996) scotus · cites it 6× “We see no reason why the prescription governing time for service [17] is not, as *670 is the whole of Rule 4, a nonjurisdictional rule governing "practice and procedure" in federal cases, see 28 U. S. C. § 2072 (a), consistent with the Rules Enabling Act and Federal Rule 82, and…”
San Juan County, Utah v. United States (2007) ca10 · cites it 6× “Under the Rules Enabling Act, "The Supreme Court shall have the power to prescribe general rules of practice and procedure and rules of evidence for cases in the United States district courts (including proceedings before magistrate judges thereof) and courts of appeals," 28…”
Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. (1996) scotus · cites it 4× “§ 1652 , reads: "The laws of the several states, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they…”
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co. (2010) scotus · cites it 9× “The court did not dispute that a Federal Rule adopted in compliance with the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2072 , would control if it conflicted with § 901(b).”
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P. A. v. Allstate Insurance (2010) scotus · cites it 21× “Affirm ing, the Second Circuit acknowledged that a Federal Rule adopted in compliance with the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U. S. C. §2072 , would control if it conflicted with §901(b), but held there was no conflict be cause §901(b) and Rule 23 address different issues—eligibility of…”
Show all 1,526 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 2072(a) — 1 case
Morris v. Lincare, Inc. (2024) flmd
— 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b) — 6 cases
Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp. (2006) ca10
Ellis v. EDWARD D, JONES & CO., LP (2007) pawd
United States v. Ringley (1990) vawd
Lewis v. United States (1993) vaed
Carroll v. Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2020) calctapp
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.