Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 53.0

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

7 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

ties  stated  that  these  suits  could  be  filed  by  one  plaintiff
on behalf of a number of others.  Id., §251.  But the “gen-
eral  rule”  was  that  “all  persons  materially  interested  . . . 
in the subject-matter of a suit, are to be made parties to it 
. . . , however numerous they may be, so that there may be
a complete decree, which shall bind them all.”  Story §72,
at  61  (emphasis  added).    And,  in  all  events,  these  “proto-
class  action[s]”  were  limited  to  a  small  group  of  similarly
situated  plaintiffs  having  some  right  in  common.    Bray
426–427; see also Story §120, at 100 (explaining that such
suits  were  “always”  based  on  “a  common  interest  or  a 
common right”).

American  courts’  tradition  of  providing  equitable  relief
only  to  parties  was  consistent  with  their  view  of  the  na-
ture  of  judicial  power.  For  most  of  our  history,  courts
understood  judicial  power  as  “fundamentall[y]  the  power
to  render  judgments  in  individual  cases.”  Murphy  v. 
National  Collegiate  Athletic  Assn.,  584  U. S.  ___,  ___–___ 
(2018) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 2–3).  They did
not believe that courts could make federal policy, and they
did  not  view  judicial  review  in  terms  of  “striking  down” 
laws or regulations.  See id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 3–4). 
Misuses  of  judicial  power,  Hamilton  reassured  the  people 
of New York, could not threaten “the general liberty of the 
people”  because  courts,  at  most,  adjudicate  the  rights  of
“individual[s].”  Federalist No. 78, at 466. 

The  judiciary’s  limited  role  was  also  reflected  in  this 
Court’s decisions about who could sue to vindicate certain 
rights.  See Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U. S. ___, ___–___ 
(2016) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 2–4).  A plain-
tiff  could  not  bring  a  suit  vindicating  public  rights—i.e., 
rights held by the community at large—without a showing
of some specific injury to himself.  Id., at ___–___ (slip op., 
at  3–4).  And  a  plaintiff  could  not  sue  to  vindicate  the 
private rights of someone else.  See Woolhandler & Nelson 
715–716.  Such  claims  were  considered  to  be  beyond  the