The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The annual federal courts issue of the Notre Dame Law Review has just gone live, and it's on the equity powers of the federal courts. That is a super-timely question–see Whole Women's Health v. Jackson, e.g.–but it's also one that has staying power. Since Grupo Mexicano in 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court has averaged one major equity case each term. The ones through 2015 are discussed here, but the trend has not abated, and if anything it has accelerated in the last seven years. The Court's renewed interest in equity cuts across ideological lines, and some of the leading opinions have been written not only by more conservative justices but also by more liberal ones (e.g., Amara, by Justice Breyer; Petrella, by Justice Ginsburg; and Liu, by Justice Sotomayor).
The increasing importance of equity in the federal courts is the backdrop for this issue of the Notre Dame Law Review. The symposium featured an excellent keynote address by Justice Barrett, and the published papers are by a very, very strong set of scholars. The range of perspectives is wide, the problems addressed important, and the quality of analysis superb. This symposium issue is a port of entry for people interested in equity in the federal courts, and it will be the starting point for years to come on the intersection of equity and the federal courts. Here are the papers, listed in author-alphabetical order. Tolle lege!
Rachel Bayefsky, Administrative Stays: Power and Procedure
Samuel L. Bray and Paul B. Miller, Getting into Equity
Seth Davis, Empire in Equity
Kellen Funk, Equity's Federalism
Andrew Kull, Equity's Atrophy
James E. Pfander and Peter C. Douglas, Law, Equity, and Supplemental Jurisdiction
Fred O. Smith, Jr., Abstaining Equitably
Mila Sohoni, Equity and the Sovereign
Ernest A. Young, Standing, Equity, and Injury in Fact
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.