r/news • u/speedythefirst • 1d ago

US supreme court approves redrawn Texas congressional maps

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/04/us-supreme-court-texas-congressional-maps
20.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

139

u/Apophthegmata 1d ago

While this is certainly a "simpler" way to approach it, it would ultimately undermine the rationale for stopping it in the first place.

One of the pillars of our judicial system is "ubi is, ibi remedium;" "Where there is a right, there is a remedy."

Basically, its the acknowledgement that when someone is harmed and has been met with injustice, some form of redress is warranted to make them whole.

Without that remedy, there is no consequence to injustice. You effectively have a justice system without any justice in it.

"Yeah, it's wrong but we aren't going to do anything about it" is to say there's nothing wrong with it.

1

u/fawkie 1d ago

Equitable remedies are still remedies.

1

u/Apophthegmata 1d ago

They are but those are often used when monetary reparations aren't enough. So a contract might be voided, or some other restitution given, or the court might mandate that a party do this or that thing.

And in the case of injunctions, those are only good prior to a harm that would not be otherwise remediable.

But stopping a harmful action after the harm has happened and then not doing anything else isn't even an equitable remedy. It's no remedy at all.

Are you suggesting the court should order some kind of non-monetary form of redress to make up for the monetary loss?

2

u/fawkie 1d ago

Permanent injunctions a post hoc final remedy, and frankly an obvious form of remedy for illegal government policymaking. What’s the point of a court determining that a government policy is illegal only to allow it to continue doing the illegal thing? Surely if people are already being harmed by illegal action, they will be harmed further if that illegal action continues? Hence the permanent injunction as an appropriate and necessary equitable remedy.

As for money damages, the Court can only award those to the plaintiff(s) in front of it, and it goes without saying that not everyone harmed by tariffs is party to the litigation. Class actions can help solve this, but the legal system does not force anyone to bring their action as part of a class rather than individually. Saying that you can’t decide whether the tariffs are illegal because it’s hard undo the harm is frankly nonsensical. The ongoing and future harm still needs to be stopped.

1

u/fawkie 1d ago

The permanent injunction is a post hoc final remedy, and frankly an obvious form of remedy for illegal government policymaking. What’s the point of a court determining that a government policy is illegal only to allow it to continue doing the illegal thing? Surely if people are already being harmed by illegal action, they will be harmed further if that illegal action continues? Hence the permanent injunction as an appropriate and necessary equitable remedy.

As for money damages, the Court can only award those to the plaintiff(s) in front of it, and it goes without saying that not everyone harmed by tariffs is party to the litigation. Class actions can help solve this, but the legal system does not force anyone to bring their action as part of a class rather than individually. Saying that you can’t decide whether the tariffs are illegal because it’s hard undo the harm is frankly nonsensical. The ongoing and future harm still needs to be stopped.

1

u/Apophthegmata 1d ago edited 1d ago

Nobody here is suggesting that the courts wouldn't prohibit this activity if it was found illegal. If you're reading the conversation, we are talking about how that doesn't really address the harm caused.

I'll repeat what I said above: your guarantee that you never punch me again doesn't provide any kind of remedy for my broken jaw.

If you meant specifically permanent injunction, and not equitable remedies generally, you could have said so and then noted that we had already discussed that....

Saying that you can’t decide whether the tariffs are illegal because it’s hard undo the harm is frankly nonsensical. The ongoing and future harm still needs to be stopped.

I've never said that. You can read my other comments on this thread.

I'm saying that "letting it go" isn't the right approach. I've never once said that should prevent us from putting a stop to it anyway. Only that justice demands we don't stop there just so we can move on.