About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 1 (May 28, 2026)

handle is hein.crs/goveulq0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Civil Procedure at the Supreme Court: Selected Cases from the October 2025 Term May 28, 2026 During the October 2025 Term to date, the Supreme Court has considered multiple cases focused on procedural issues. Among them, as discussed in order below, are cases about the relationship between federal and state procedural rules, the timing of motions for relief from judgment, federal court diversity jurisdiction, sovereign immunity, removal of cases from state to federal court, and constitutional requirements related to standing to sue. Congress has the power to enact legislation to regulate proceedings in federal courts. Thus, these cases may be of interest to Congress because Congress could amend the specific statutes or rules at issue in these cases or could look to the rulings as guidance on how the Court might interpret related legislation in the future. This Legal Sidebar provides an overview of seven civil procedure cases from the Supreme Court's October 2025 term, listed chronologically by date of decision, then briefly discusses related considerations for Congress. Berk v. Choy In Berk v Choy, the Supreme Court held that a state law-Delaware's law requiring that medical malpractice complaints must be dismissed unless accompanied by expert affidavits-cannot apply in federal court because it conflicts with a valid federal procedural rule. Federal courts hearing cases involving state law claims between parties from different states, known as diversity cases, apply federal procedural law and state substantive law, except where the Constitution or treaties of the United States or Acts of Congress otherwise require or provide. After suffering complications from an ankle fracture, plaintiff-petitioner Harold R. Berk filed a medical negligence complaint in Delaware federal court against the treating physician and his employer. Under Delaware law, a plaintiff filing a medical malpractice claim must include an affidavit from a qualified expert stating that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there has been health-care medical negligence committed by each defendant. Berk was unable to comply with the affidavit requirement, and the district court dismissed the case. The U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit) affirmed the dismissal, holding that the affidavit requirement is substantive rather than procedural. Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB11434 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress