Class Actions, Civil Rights, and the National Injunction

Authors

Suzette M. Malveaux, University of Colorado Law SchoolFollow

Document Type

Response or Comment

Publication

Harvard Law Review Forum

Year

2017

Citation Information

Suzette M. Malveaux, Response, Class Actions, Civil Rights, and the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. F. 56 (2017), https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/vol131_Malveaux.pdf, available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1209/.

Abstract

This essay is a response to Professor Samuel Bray’s article proposing a blanket prohibition against injunctions that enjoin a defendant’s conduct with respect to nonparties. He argues that national injunctions are illegitimate under Article III and traditional equity and result in a number of difficulties.

This Response argues, from a normative lens, that Bray’s proposed ban on national injunctions should be rejected. Such a bright-line rule against national injunctions is too blunt an instrument to address the complexity of our tripartite system of government, our pluralistic society and our democracy. Although national injunctions may be imperfect and crude forms of justice, they are better than no justice at all — which for some actions, may be the alternative.

Comments

This essay is a Response to Samuel L. Bray, Multiple Chancellors: Reforming the National Injunction, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 417 (2017).

Copyright Statement

Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required.