Part I of this Article provides a framework for understanding the core issues of interbranch power implicated in statute-Rule conflicts by discussing the constitutional foundations of procedural rulemaking authority, Congress’ statutory delegation of rulemaking authority to the Supreme Court in the Rules Enabling Act, and the experience of Court and congressional involvement in procedural rulemaking. Part II examines the predominant method of analyzing apparent statute-Rule conflicts – use of canon of statutory interpretation disfavoring implied repeals. Part II demonstrates that the Supreme Court has used this implied repeals analysis, but has never discussed directly or comprehensively the appropriate methodology for resolving statute-Rule conflicts. Part II also emphasizes how use of an unmodified implied repeals analysis fails to address paramount issues of power and also encourages courts to ignore, omit, or subordinate such issues. Part III proposes an alternative framework for resolving conflicts between statutes enacted by Congress and Federal Rules promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act process that accords primacy to the allocation of rulemaking power between the Court and Congress. This proposed method of analysis is referred to as the “rulemaking authority” framework to distinguish it from the implied repeals framework that accords primacy to principles of statutory interpretation.
Emory Law Journal
Bernadette B. Genetin, Expressly Repudiating Implied Repeals Analysis: A New Framework for Resolving Conflicts Between Congressional Statutes and Federal Rules, 51 Emory Law Journal 676 (2002).
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/bernadette_genetin/2