TheFutureLawyer wrote:HELP NOW; Civ Pro
Rules Enabling Act: "can't abridge modify or enlarge a substantive right"
What constitutes "substantive right"?
Rights conferred by substantive law (i.e., that aren't procedural). You're getting into Hanna 2 here, if IIRC,
What's the difference between procedure/substantive rights, LOL? The answer is it's impossible to come up witha bright line rule. Statute of limitations differences--> technically procedural, but can do some fucked up things to a person's substantive rights to possess land for certain periods of time. A useful way to think about it is whether the law exists for non-procedural reasons (i.e., not having to do with efficiency, autonomy, or fairness in litigation).
But basically, this is a super hard test to pass. In Burlington, the court even held that when procedural rules 'incidentally' affect substantive rights, even those will be permissible.
Some examples of hard to call cases: attorney-client privilege differences (technically affects courtroom procedure, but has an effect on behavior outside the courtroom that has nothing to do with fairness in litigation)
Right to recover attroneys fees: Techincally this deals with admin matters so you'd think it's procedural. But it could turn out that it has a substantial impact on the rights claimed by the loser.
I think you should exploit this amiguity on the exam and argue for BOTH SIDES. I'd recommend (if it's a close call) falling on the side of "invalid under REA." If it's arguably procedural, I'd still say it has a substantive impact on states' rights. You could argue against that for a more bright line rule and talk about the need to separate 'procedure' from actual laws that affect people's lives outside the courtroom.