The Rules of Decision Act requires that federal courts apply state law in their decisions arising out of diversity jurisdiction, except when in conflict with federal law.
This act came from Section 34 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. It is now codified, in slightly different form, in 28 U.S.C. § 1652.
It states that:
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 apply.
Its interpretation, especially the meaning of "the laws of the several states," was central to the issue in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins.
This interpretation has been called into question by Professor Wilfrid J. Ritz. At the time of the drafting of the Rules of Decision Act, modern reporting standards of state opinions did not exist. Reporting of these decisions was not regular until the nineteenth century. Therefore, at the time the Rules of Decision Act was written, there would have been no manner by which federal courts could have ascertained the common law of the states.
Rather, Professor Ritz opined that "Section 34 is a direction to the national courts to apply American law, as distinguished from English law. American law is to be found in the 'laws of the several states' viewed as a group of eleven states in 1789, and not viewed separately and individually. It is not a direction to apply the law of a particular state, for if it had been so intended, the section would have referred to the 'laws of the respective states.'" Wilfrid Ritz, Rewriting the History of the Judiciary Act of 1789 at 51 (Wythe Holt & Lewis H. LaRue eds., 1990)
Famous quotes containing the words rules of, rules, decision and/or act:
“As no one can tell what was the Roman pronunciation, each nation makes the Latin conform, for the most part, to the rules of its own language; so that with us of the vowels only A has a peculiar sound.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“Unfortunately, we cannot rely solely on employers seeing that it is in their self-interest to change the workplace. Since the benefits of family-friendly policies are long-term, they may not be immediately visible or quantifiable; companies tend to look for success in the bottom line. On a deeper level, we are asking those in power to change the rules by which they themselves succeeded and with which they identify.”
—Anne C. Weisberg (20th century)
“Will mankind never learn that policy is not morality,—that it never secures any moral right, but considers merely what is expedient? chooses the available candidate,—who is invariably the devil,—and what right have his constituents to be surprised, because the devil does not behave like an angel of light? What is wanted is men, not of policy, but of probity,—who recognize a higher law than the Constitution, or the decision of the majority.”
—Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862)
“Once women begin to question the inevitability of their subordination and to reject the conventions formerly associated with it, they can no longer retreat to the safety of those conventions. The woman who rejects the stereotype of feminine weakness and dependence can no longer find much comfort in the cliché that all men are beasts. She has no choice except to believe, on the contrary, that men are human beings, and she finds it hard to forgive them when they act like animals.”
—Christopher Lasch (b. 1932)