Tomás Gómez-Arostegui (Lewis & Clark Law School) has posted Universal Injunctions and Attorney General v. Vernon (Ch. 1684-1685/6) (13 pages) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a trio of cases on the emergency docket. Although the cases all concern birthright citizenship, the United States has asked the Court to address a single issue: whether universal injunctions are lawful as a general matter. A universal injunction protects persons that a defendant will allegedly harm, but who are not plaintiffs in the suit. English legal history could play a major role here, at least according to Supreme Court precedent and several current Justices. Several Justices have recently signaled that they will adhere to a line of decisions from the Court in which it ruled that federal courts can only employ equitable remedies that were known to the English Court of Chancery in 1789. In this essay, I lament the lack of primary research in the briefing and address a 17th-century Chancery case that some might believe supports non-party protective relief in equity. To show it does not, I review all the records in the case. I conclude with some thoughts on how the Court should proceed.
(Via Dan Ernst at Legal History Blog.)
Posted at 6:33 AM