Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf
Page Number: 50

4 

TRUMP v. HAWAII 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

B 

The  same  is  true  of  the  courts’  inherent  constitutional 
authority  to  grant  equitable  relief,  assuming  any  such 
authority exists.  See Jenkins, 515 U. S., at 124 (THOMAS, 
J., concurring).  This authority is also limited by the tradi-
tional rules of equity that existed at the founding. 

The  scope  of  the  federal  courts’  equitable  authority
under  the  Constitution  was  a  point  of  contention  at  the 
founding,  and  the  “more  limited  construction”  of  that
power  prevailed.    Id.,  at  126.    The  founding  generation 
viewed equity “with suspicion.”  Id., at 128.  Several anti-
Federalists  criticized  the  Constitution’s  extension  of  the 
federal  judicial  power  to  “Case[s]  in  . . .  Equity,”  Art. III, 
§2,  as  “giv[ing]  the  judge  a  discretionary  power.”    Letters 
from The Federal Farmer No. XV (Jan. 18, 1788), in 2 The
Complete  Anti-Federalist  315,  322  (H.  Storing  ed.  1981). 
That  discretionary  power,  the  anti-Federalists  alleged, 
would  allow  courts  to  “explain  the  constitution  according 
to the reasoning spirit of it, without being confined to the
words or letter.”  Essays of Brutus No. XI (Jan. 31, 1788), 
in id., at 417, 419–420.  The Federalists responded to this
concern  by  emphasizing  the  limited  nature  of  equity. 
Hamilton  explained  that  the  judiciary  would  be  “bound
down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define 
and  point  out  their  duty  in  every  particular  case  that
comes  before  them.”  The  Federalist  No.  78,  p.  471  (C.
Rossiter ed. 1961) (Federalist).  Although the purpose of a 
court  of  equity  was  “to  give  relief  in  extraordinary  cases, 
which  are  exceptions  to  general  rules,”  “the  principles  by
which that relief is governed are now reduced to a regular 
system.”  Id. No. 83 at 505 (emphasis deleted).

The  Federalists’  explanation  was  consistent  with  how 
equity worked in 18th-century England.  English courts of
equity applied established rules not only when they decided
the  merits,  but  also  when  they  fashioned  remedies. 
Like other aspects of equity, “the system of relief adminis-