Court Opinion

ID: 9418091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:08:22.359412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:55.419618
License: Public Domain

MR. Justice Harlan, ,
concurring.
' The "State, of Georgia is, in my opinion, 'entitled to the general relief sought by'its bill, and, therefore, I concur-in the result. With some' things, however, contained' in the opinion, or to be implied from its language,-. I do not concur. When the Constitution gave this court original jurisdiction in cases *240"in which á State shall be a party,” it was not intended, I think, to authorize the.court to apply in its behalf, any principle or rule of equity that would not be applied, under the same facts, in suits wholly between private parties. If . this was a suit between private parties, and if upder the evidence, a court of - equity would not give the plaintiff an injunction, then it ought not to grant relief, under like circumstances, to the plaintiff, because.it happens to be a State possessing some powers of sovereignty. Georgia is- entitled to the relief sought, not' because' it is a State, but because it is a party which has established its right to such relief by proof. The opinion, if I do not mistake its scope, proceeds largely upon the ground that this court, sitting in this case as a court of equity, owes some special duty to Georgia as a State, although it is a party, while under the same facts, it would not owe any such duty to the plaintiff, if an individual.