28
TRUMP v. CASA, INC.
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
early American payments of peace and the historical past of taxpayer fits. It additional contradicts this Courtroom’s observe, in circumstances like Lewis, Pierce, and Barnette, of affirming and granting common injunctions even when narrower, plaintiff- targeted injunctions would have supplied full reduction to the events. See supra, at 20-21. The bulk as an alternative fo- cuses on one case from 1897, by which this Courtroom “permitted solely a narro[w] decree between ‘the events named as plain- tiff and defendants within the invoice,”” ante, at 7 (quoting Scott, 165 U. S., at 117), over others, together with from the identical pe- riod, doing simply the alternative. The bulk gives no princi- pled foundation to deem the query resolved by a single case from 1897 whereas circumstances just some years later charted a dif- ferent course. Certainly, if the related inquiry activates “founding-era observe,” then there isn’t any purpose why a case from 1897 must be dispositive. Ante, at 9, n. 7.
Within the majority’s telling, Scott merely “illustrates that as late as 1897, this Courtroom adhered to a party-specific view of reduction.” Ante, at 7–8, n. 6. Nothing in Scott, nevertheless, dic- tates that equitable reduction should at all times be social gathering particular. On the contrary, only one yr after Scott, the Courtroom endorsed the alternative view: “Solely a courtroom of fairness,” the Courtroom ex- plained, “is competent to … decide, as soon as for all and and not using a multiplicity of fits, issues that have an effect on not merely people, however the pursuits of the complete commu- nity.” Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 518 (1898); see additionally id., at 517 (“[T]he circuit courtroom of america, sitting in fairness, could make a complete decree masking the entire floor of controversy, and thus keep away from the multiplic- ity of fits that will inevitably come up below the statute”).6
6 Whatever the precise decree the Smyth courtroom authorized, see ante, at 7-8, n. 6, its evaluation clearly reveals that the Courtroom understood fairness to allow broad reduction meant to profit events and nonparties alike. That’s the reason this Courtroom later authorized or granted common injunctions
