Sibbach v. Wilson & Co.
312 U.S. 1, 61 S. Ct. 422 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure is valid under the Rules Enabling Act if it regulates the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and does not abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.
Facts:
- The petitioner, Sibbach, brought an action to recover damages for bodily injuries.
- Sibbach's injuries were inflicted in the state of Indiana.
- The lawsuit was filed in a federal court located in the state of Illinois.
- The law in Indiana, where the injuries occurred, permitted court-ordered physical examinations.
- The law in Illinois, where the trial court sat, did not permit court-ordered physical examinations.
- Sibbach refused to comply with a court order requiring her to submit to a physical examination by a court-appointed physician.
Procedural Posture:
- Sibbach sued Wilson & Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- The respondent, Wilson & Co., moved for an order compelling Sibbach to undergo a physical examination under FRCP 35, which the court granted.
- After Sibbach refused to comply with the order, the District Court found her in contempt and ordered her committed to custody.
- Sibbach, as appellant, appealed the contempt order to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, upholding the validity of Rule 35.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 35 and 37, which permit a court to order a party to submit to a physical examination, exceed the authority granted to the Supreme Court by the Rules Enabling Act by abridging a 'substantive right'?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Roberts
No. The rules do not exceed the authority granted by Congress because they regulate procedure and do not modify substantive rights. The test for a rule's validity is whether it really regulates procedure—the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties—not whether it affects an 'important' or 'substantial' right. Substantive rights are those conferred by law, such as the right to sue for negligence, whereas procedural rules govern the machinery for enforcing those rights. While prior case law, such as Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Botsford, had denied federal courts the inherent power to order such exams, that was due to a lack of statutory authority. The Rules Enabling Act and the subsequent promulgation of Rule 35 provide that authority, effectively creating a federal statute on the matter. Congress's inaction after reviewing the proposed rules further indicates that it did not view them as transgressing legislative policy. However, the trial court erred by holding Sibbach in contempt, as Rule 37(b)(2)(iv) expressly prohibits contempt as a sanction for refusing to submit to a physical examination.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
Yes. The rule exceeds the rulemaking authority granted by Congress. The question should not be a technical one of 'procedure' versus 'substance,' but should be controlled by the policy underlying the Botsford decision, which recognized the 'inviolability of a person' as a historic liberty in Anglo-American law. A drastic change in public policy that intrudes upon such a deeply personal right and privacy should not be accomplished through a general authorization to formulate court rules. Such an invasion of the person requires explicit legislation from Congress. Inferring Congressional approval from its silence when the rules were submitted is unrealistic given the practicalities of the legislative process.
Analysis:
This landmark decision solidifies the validity and broad scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It establishes a highly deferential standard for reviewing the rules, defining 'procedure' capaciously and 'substantive rights' narrowly under the Rules Enabling Act. By rejecting the argument that a rule is invalid if it affects an 'important' right, the Court made it significantly more difficult to challenge the FRCP, thereby cementing the power of the federal judiciary to regulate its own processes uniformly across the country, regardless of differing state practices.
Unlock the full brief for Sibbach v. Wilson & Co.