The Supreme Court's Accidental Revolution? The Test for Permanent Injunctions
Mark P. Gergen
University of California, Berkeley - School of Law
John M. Golden
The University of Texas at Austin - School of Law
Henry E. Smith
Harvard Law School
Columbia Law Review, Vol. 112, No. 2, 2012
U of Texas Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 220
A brusque opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court in a patent case has launched a revolution in the law of equitable remedies. The Court’s opinion in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. asserted that it was merely upholding “traditional principles” regarding when injunctions should issue. But in circuit after circuit and for subject matter ranging from federal constitutional law to state tort law, lower courts have understood eBay to abrogate longstanding approaches. Focusing on the law for permanent injunctions, this Article examines the eBay opinion and the far-reaching changes that have resulted. For a better perspective on these changes, this Article discusses how courts historically have addressed equity’s traditional concerns with risks of irreparable injury and the balance of hardships. Finally, this Article provides a normative account of the structured sets of equitable presumptions and safety valves that current understandings of eBay threaten to sweep aside.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 47Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: April 25, 2012
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.422 seconds