Applause for the Plausible

Why has the word “plausible” come to define federal civil litigation? In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court supplemented longstanding pleading standards under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which require a “short and plain statement of the claim,”1 to additionally require that all civil pleadings state a claim that is “plausible.”2 In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Court rejected other possible words that might describe the newly tightened pleading standard, such as “reasonable” or “probable.”3 To the dismay of many judges, lawyers, and other observers, the Court did not define “plausible,” except to add that “plausible” pleadings “nudge[] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.”4 In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Court again did not define “plausible,” except to assert that a “plausible” claim must not be “conclusory” in nature.5 This Essay explores the complex and contradictory meanings of the word “plausible.” Furthermore, this Essay applauds the Supreme Court’s selection of such an equivocal and conflicted word as the gateway to federal civil litigation.