What the Justices Are Really Saying in Berk v. Choy

Xylee Alvarez

February 2026

In Berk v. Choy, the Supreme Court’s opinions shape who gets into federal court. 

Throughout the week, I reviewed the court's recent opinions in Berk v. Choy, a technical case that appears to concern filing requirements. However, after reading the Justices' opinions, it has become clear that the decision of this case was about something bigger: who controls access to federal courts, and how easily claims can be dismissed before they are ever heard. 

The case began after Harold Berk injured his ankle and alleged that three healthcare providers provided negligent healthcare: Dr. Wilson C. Choy, Beebe Medical Center, and Encompass Rehabilitation Hospital. Berk went on to file his lawsuit in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, relying on Delaware law. Delaware, like many states, requires plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases to submit an affidavit of merit (AOM) from an expert at the start of the case. Berk did not file one in time, and his case was dismissed. 

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed that dismissal. Writing for the Court, the majority concluded that Delaware’s affidavit of merit requirement cannot apply in federal court because it conflicts with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The opinion emphasizes that the Federal Rules already govern what is required to file a complaint and when dismissal is appropriate. When a state rule answers the same procedural question differently, the federal rule must prevail. 

The majority is saying that the procedure shapes outcomes. Requiring an affidavit of merit at the complaint stage isn’t just a technical detail; it can operate as a gatekeeper that ends cases before discovery, testimony, or meaningful review ever occurs. The Court’s tone seems restrained, but its message still stands firm: federal courts are not free to import state procedural barriers that alter the federal pleading system. 

Justice Jackson concurred in the result but wrote separately, and her opinion adds an important layer. While she agrees that the Delaware statute cannot apply in federal court, her concurrence mainly highlights the reasoning rather than the outcome. She underscores that this case is not about undermining state interests but rather respecting the structure Congress created when it authorized uniform federal procedural rules. Her words honestly raised a bit of caution about overstating the decision’s reach, even as she agrees with where it lands. 

Taken together, the opinions reveal a Court that is indeed deeply aware of how procedural rules can quietly determine justice. Nobody disputes the state’s goal of discouraging weak malpractice claims, but the Justices draw a line when those goals seem to collide with federal rules designed to ensure consistent access to federal courts. 

Berk v. Choy is not a flashy case, to be frank. However, it is the perfect demonstration of how easily lawsuits can be decided by rules that operate in the background, and how the Supreme Court views its role in policing those boundaries. By rejecting the affidavit of merit requirement in federal court, the justices reaffirm that access to federal courts cannot depend on state-by-state procedural obstacles. 

This decision makes it clear that when the procedure gets to decide who is heard, the Court is paying close attention, even when speaking in a calm, careful voice.