Abstract
The United States can sue for equitable relief without statutory authorization, and the leading case on this question is In re Debs. But what Debs stands for is controversial. This Essay understands Debs against the backdrop of equity’s traditional limiting principles, including the need for a connection between equitable relief and a proprietary interest. Although Debs offers an aggressive reading of “property,” the most plausible reading of the case is consistent with those traditional limiting principles. And indeed that is how Debs was read in the subsequent decades. This Essay shows not only that this is a sound reading of Debs, but also that there is a normative basis for these traditional limiting principles in equity today.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
