Abstract
This Article examines two traditions that courts employ to justify or deny constitutional remedies. The dominant tradition, corrective justice, requires remedies to address harms caused by defendants and to restore the position of plaintiffs before such harms. A less dominant but recently revived tradition, equity, stresses the breadth and flexibility of remedial powers and the obligation to balance affected interests before ordering intrusive remedies. Professor Roach assesses the theory and practice of these two traditions with reference to institutional reform litigation and concludes that in such contexts, courts have not and cannot live up to the demands of corrective justice. He argues that equity provides a better explanation of what courts have done and has the potential to justify remedies based on the needs of those injured by structural wrongs and the opportunities for genuine reform.
How to Cite
33 Ariz. L. Rev. 859 (1991)
4
Views
3
Downloads