Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2025

Abstract

This Article’s core claim is that state courts should rethink how they approach remedies in structural injunction cases. Specifically, they should rely less on federal precedent and work to develop unique state doctrines that better reflect state constitutional structure and democratic design. This Article argues that the predominant federal rationales for limiting equitable relief neither sufficiently engage with state constitutional structure nor with the nature of state constitutional democracy. Instead, they tend to simply parrot ideas and arguments the United States Supreme Court developed under the federal Constitution that do not have the same relevance or salience when deciding remedies questions under state constitutions. Much more work must be done to map out a unique and authentic state constitutional law of remedies. This Article’s modest goal is to draw attention to ideas for future inquiry based on the premise that federal remedies precedent and theory is a poor fit for state courts.

This Article proceeds in three parts. Part I briefly describes the nature of structural injunctions and surveys the key arguments under the federal Constitution for why courts should avoid structural injunctions. Part II highlights a few recent areas where state courts faced requests for structural relief. This Part also shows how state courts often—although not always—rely uncritically on federal doctrine limiting the availability of structural injunctions. Part III argues that state courts should develop their own approach to structural injunctions that better reflects state constitutional structure.

Download

Share

COinS