Document Type
Brief
Publication Date
11-29-2021
Abstract
Amici are a group of philosophically diverse law school professors who offer a unique perspective about federal courts’ equitable powers and principles of statutory interpretation. Together, amici share an interest in ensuring that federal law be construed in accordance with its text and longstanding background principles regarding review of executive action.<\p>
From our Nation’s Founding, federal courts have exercised broad equitable authority to issue injunctions prohibiting executive officials from acting beyond their lawfully conferred authority. This bedrock power to restrain ultra vires acts by the executive branch is a foundational tenet of the American legal system. This Court has long recognized that this equitable authority should not be abridged “[a]bsent the clearest command to the contrary from Congress.” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 705 (1979) (emphasis added).<\p>
In short, the government’s extreme position in this case should be rejected. There is nothing in the text or structure of Section 1252(f)(1) that warrants the extraordinary conclusion that class wide injunctive relief against even flagrantly unlawful immigration policies is barred, simply because the executive branch purports to be acting under statutory authority.<\p>
Recommended Citation
Litman, Leah, "Garland v. Gonzalez: Brief for Amici Curiae Law Professors in Support of Respondents" (2021). Appellate Briefs. 72.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/briefs/72
Comments
Amicus: Bradt, Professor Andrew; Hershkoff, Professor Helen; Litman, Professor Leah; Marcus, Professor David; Neuman, Professor Gerald; Wasserman, Professor Howard M.; Wishnie, Professor Michael J.; Zimmerman, Professor Adam