In the case of Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., Inc., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a federal court to order a physical or mental examination for parties whose health is in controversy, exceeded Congress's power under Article III Section 2 Clause 2 (the Necessary and Proper Clause) of the Constitution. The plaintiff, Nellie Sibbach, had brought a personal injury claim against Wilson & Co., but refused to comply with an ordered medical exam. She argued that Rule 35 violated her rights under Fourth and Fifth Amendments as well as exceeding congressional authority by creating substantive rights not provided for by law. However, in its decision issued in January 1941, the Supreme Court upheld Rule 35 stating it did not violate any constitutional provision nor exceed congressional rulemaking authority because it was procedural rather than substantive; thus falling within Congress's power to make rules governing federal courts' procedures.

In the dissenting opinion for Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., Inc., Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's interpretation of Rule 35, which allows a court to order a physical or mental examination of a party, was too broad and exceeded Congress' intent when it enacted the Rules Enabling Act. He contended that such an expansive reading could infringe upon substantive rights protected by state law, as in this case where Indiana law did not permit forced medical examinations. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of this rule and its impact on personal privacy rights. In his view, procedural rules should facilitate fair adjudication without altering parties' legal rights or defenses under substantive laws; thus he believed Rule 35 should be applied with more restraint than suggested by the majority decision.