If we accept this, there remains the question of what we mean by 'equality'. Rawls talks of equality of opportunity. Such questions needed to be explored if equality was to be used as the philosophical framework for native title. There are other frequently used terms, which required definition. Debates between Hobbes and Locke, or Hart and Devlin would suggest otherwise.
Universal principles are highly contentious in legal philosophy.
It is not clear to me why pragmatism necessarily stands in opposition to 'equality before the law'. To allay my confusion, I needed an explanation of what the author meant by pragmatism. In such an important academic text, precision of terminology is of great importance.