Tomás Gómez-Arostegui, Lewis & Clark Law School, has posted Universal Injunctions and Attorney General v. Vernon (Ch. 1684-1685/6):
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. 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. Thus, a central issue before the Court this month might be whether the English Court of Chancery in 1789 could issue something akin to a universal injunction.
In this essay, I first lament the lack of primary research in the briefing. Unfortunately, no one to my knowledge has dived deeply into the Chancery cases before 1789. Thus far, scholars have cited only a handful of printed reports from the period, and no one has explored the countless unpublished suits that survive in the records of the National Archives. Indeed, I do not believe any scholar has cited even a single actual order or decree from the Chancery's official records.
Second, I 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, including manuscripts from the Court of Chancery and elsewhere.
Lastly, I conclude with some thoughts on how the Court should proceed, particularly given how little 18th-century work has been done on universal injunctions thus far.
--Dan Ernst
