Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 56

10 

TRUMP v. HAWAII 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

Injunctions  and  Nationwide  Harm,  131  Harv.  L. Rev. 
Forum  49,  51,  54  (2017);  Malveaux,  Class  Actions,  Civil
Rights,  and  the  National  Injunction,  131  Harv.  L. Rev.
Forum 56, 57, 60–62 (2017).  But these arguments do not 
explain  how  these  injunctions  are  consistent  with  the 
historical  limits  on  equity  and  judicial  power.    They  at
best  “boi[l] down  to  a  policy  judgment”  about  how  powers
ought  to  be  allocated  among  our  three  branches  of  gov-
ernment.  Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., 575 U. S. ___, 
___ (2015) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op.,
at 23).  But the people already made that choice when they 
ratified the Constitution. 

* 

* 
In sum, universal injunctions are legally and historically
dubious.  If  federal  courts  continue  to  issue  them,  this 
Court is dutybound to adjudicate their authority to do so. 

*