•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This Article maintains that groundbreaking Supreme Court cases reshaping judicial power and restraint are frequently remedies centric. The much- anticipated ruling in Trump v. CASA illustrates this correlation. Interpreting traditional equity, the Supreme Court circumscribed federal judicial power to issue universal relief. The Court relied on Marbury v. Madison to bolster its reasoning on the limits of judicial power. Ironically, both cases denied any remedy while enhancing the potential for future judicial power. Whether via judicial review and supremacy power or the Court’s future ability to now be the only federal court able to issue universal remedies—the Court’s role in the separation of powers remains potent. It retains the potential to protect against the encroachment of rights by other branches. The increasing use of the emergency, also known as the shadow, docket intensifies the importance of remedial pressure points. The problematic nature of universal injunctions, for example, distorted the docket and led the Court, in CASA, to interpret the history of equity too narrowly, even if one appreciates the need for reform. Similar flaws plague standing jurisprudence regarding interpretation of the actual injury and redressability components of the constitutional case or controversy requirement. Injury and redressability embed remedies considerations. Whether legal or equitable, remedies jurisprudence should not calcify remedies with rigid borders to cure perceived litigation abuses. For example, in honoring equity’s traditions, the Court should be more reluctant to disregard historic equitable principles such as flexibility, discretion, and complete relief. Otherwise, a future needed flex of Supreme Court interbranch power may prove ineffective or elusive. This moment reinforces the opportunity to take remedies seriously.

Download

Share

COinS