April 29, 2010 1:49PM 

# A Contrarian Cheer for Twombly 

By [Mark Moller](https://www.cato.org/people/mark-moller) 

---

<a class="js-popover-trigger cursor-pointer popover-trigger" data-bs-placement="bottom" data-bs-trigger="click" id="popover-trigger"> 

SHARE 

</a> 

My new article, *Procedure’s Ambiguity* (now up on [SSRN](http://ssrn.com/abstract=1587842) and also available [here](http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2010/04/moller-on-procedural-ambiguity.html)) is a [rare bird ](http://druganddevicelaw.blogspot.com/2010/03/were-not-neutral-on-twomblyiqbal.html)in the world legal scholarship: it defends the Supreme Court’s [much](http://www.acslaw.org/node/14181)-[reviled](http://www.acslaw.org/node/13479) pleading decisions, *Bell Atlantic v. Twombly* and *Ashcroft v. Iqbal.*

It is, in fact, a rare bird even in the small world of articles defending *Twombly* and *Iqbal*. [Others](http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2010/01/a-twomblyiqbal.php) claim these cases, by directing lower courts to dismiss implausible claims, will deter frivolous suits, save judicial resources, and the like. I find these defenses, while plausible, too speculative and take a very different tack–one that builds on the growing literature on so-called “pluralist” approaches to interpretation. Judicial pluralists favor interpreting ambiguous statutes in ways that mimic approaches to which interest groups would, hypothetically, agree. And *Twombly* and *Iqbal*, I argue, are cases after judicial pluralists’ own hearts: They reflect a fair compromise—one, I argue, that mimics the bargain different groups with a stake in procedural rulemaking would, if given the chance, reach among themselves.

##### Related Tags 

[General](https://www.cato.org/general), [Constitutional Law](https://www.cato.org/constitutional-law), [Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies](https://www.cato.org/robert-levy-center-constitutional-studies) 

[![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) 
This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).