"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire".
-- Matthew 3:11-12
In your first year of law school, you'd usually be handed the task of understanding all the 1L doctrinal topics: Contracts, Civil Procedure, Property, Criminal Law, Torts, and maybe some form of legal writing. In Civil Procedure, you'll learn what a motion is and what a pleading is. According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pleadings could be described as papers or filings that are given to the court to set a motion of events. For example, a counterclaim is a pleading. It is when one party files a defense against what another has claimed. An example is that I sue you for my injuries sustained from a fall that occurred near a pool on your cruise ship. You, as the defendant may assert that my fall was not entirely your fault, but that I may have contributed to it. This is when you would assert an affirmative defense, which shows the court that the plaintiff (me) can not set blame entirely on the you (the defendant), and therefore is not entitled to relief in the form of monetary benefit.
A motion serves a different purpose than a pleading. Think of a motion as resembling various paths within a maze. While a pleading is a formal document used to assert a claim, defense, or request for relief by providing relevant information, a motion operates differently. It serves as a procedural tool that allows a party in a lawsuit to either seek additional information about the opposing party's claims or potentially bring the case to an end. This latter purpose aligns with the more commonly accepted understanding of a motion.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure outline numerous types of motions, but I will focus specifically on one: the 12(b)(6) motion. This motion provides a pathway to seek dismissal of a case by challenging the legal sufficiency of the opposing party's claims. In essence, it asserts, "I am ending this case because the plaintiff has failed to state a claim—essentially, they have not explained what I did wrong—in a way that would justify granting them relief." Put simply, it argues that even if the plaintiff's allegations are true, they do not establish a legal basis for holding the defendant liable or requiring compensation to address the alleged harm.
This was brought up in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, commonly referred to together as Twiqbal. Both cases established the precedent that a claim for relief cannot merely be possible—which, in layman's terms, means providing a short and plain statement, as was previously sufficient. Instead, the claim must be more plausible than possible. This means that, based on the evidence provided and the law allegedly violated, it must be more believable that the plaintiff truly has a valid claim upon which relief can be granted.
For example, imagine I performed plastic surgery on your nose to reverse a scar caused by a car accident. If I accidentally left a gauze in your nose and you sought relief, your initial pleading might simply state, “X committed malpractice on me.” Under the old standard, that short and plain statement might have been enough. However, under the new Twiqbal standard, such a claim would require more detail to survive. If I, as the defendant, filed a 12(b)(6) motion, your case would likely fail.
On the other hand, if your pleading initially stated, “X committed malpractice on me by leaving gauze in my nose, which caused an infection of X kind and requires additional surgery to remove it,” my 12(b)(6) motion might fail. Under the Twiqbal standard, your claim would then appear more plausible than possible, giving it a better chance of surviving and proceeding to trial.
I know this concept can seem confusing, but we see a similar lesson about discernment in Matthew 3:11–12. In these verses, we learn that Jesus Christ, who is God, is the ultimate discerner. He knows who is truly righteous and who is not—who is more plausible than merely possible. These verses show us that God uses the power of the Holy Spirit and fire to refine and distinguish between the righteous and the unrighteous. Malachi 3:2 describes Jesus' second coming as “a refiner’s fire,” reminding us of the work of a refiner—someone who purifies and cleanses, removing all impurities to restore what was once unclean.
In Matthew 3:11–12, God is portrayed as the refiner who cleanses us, but also as the one who separates the good from the bad. Verse 12 mentions the “fan in his hand,” referring to a winnowing fan, a tool used in ancient times to separate wheat from chaff. Similarly, at the end of time, God will use His divine discernment to separate those who are truly His from those who are not. While God works through the Holy Spirit and fire to refine us from the evils of this world, we must ask ourselves: will our faith and our lives be more plausible than merely possible? Will our spiritual "pleading" be detailed enough to withstand His divine scrutiny, or will it lack the depth required to receive the ultimate relief—eternal life?
This reminds me of the story of the rich young ruler, who asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life but walked away sorrowful when faced with the simple task of giving up his possessions. Often, it is not just the external temptations of the world but the internal struggles of our hearts that cause us to falter. When we face trials and are refined by the fire and the Holy Spirit, let us strive to be unlike the rich young ruler. Instead of clinging to the filth of sin, let us be willing to let go of everything that weighs us down. By submitting to God’s refining process, we can ensure that, as we pass through the winnowing fan of His discernment, our election for eternal life will become more plausible than merely possible.
Comments