Executive Summary
Justice Thomas's concurrence warns against misinterpreting the "complete relief" principle as a mandate for overbroad injunctions, framing it as a potential backdoor to replicate the effects of a universal injunction. By insisting that complete relief is a discretionary ceiling, not a mandatory floor, and must yield to traditional equitable limits, Thomas reveals a concern about substantive evasion that mirrors the procedural evasion anxiety in the Alito concurrence. His analysis seeks to preemptively close a doctrinal loophole he fears lower courts will exploit to undermine the majority's core holding.
The "Complete Relief" Trap
Relief as a Ceiling, Not a Mandate
Thomas argues forcefully that courts "err insofar as they treat complete relief as a mandate." He stresses that while courts may administer complete relief, they are not required to, especially when doing so would conflict with other equitable principles, such as fairness to the defendant or the historical limits of a court's power. This reframes complete relief as the maximum possible remedy, not a guaranteed entitlement for plaintiffs.
The High Bar for "Indivisible" Remedies
The concurrence concedes that some remedies are "indivisible" and will incidentally benefit non-parties (e.g., a public nuisance injunction). However, Thomas contends such cases are "by far the exception" and only permissible when crafting a plaintiff-specific remedy is "all but impossible." He explicitly rejects administrative difficulty or inconvenience as a sufficient justification for granting relief that extends beyond the named plaintiffs, a direct counter to a common argument for broader injunctions.
A Shared Concern: Substantive Evasion
Doctrinal vs. Procedural Loopholes
Where the Alito concurrence fears evasion through procedural mechanisms like class actions, Thomas fears evasion through the substantive doctrine of remedies. Both justices are clearly concerned that the majority's ban on universal injunctions will be rendered meaningless if lower courts simply find other ways—doctrinal or procedural—to achieve the same result. This shared anxiety about circumvention is a key theme connecting the two opinions.
Judicial Restraint or Executive Empowerment?
Thomas's strict interpretation of remedial power can be viewed as a call for judicial restraint, preventing courts from acting like legislatures to solve nationwide problems. However, critics would argue that by making broad relief exceptionally difficult to obtain, his approach functionally empowers the executive branch, allowing potentially unlawful policies to remain in effect for all but a handful of successful litigants.
Expected Thomas Rejoinder
Historical Fidelity Defense
Thomas would likely argue his position is not a policy preference but a strict adherence to history. Citing Grupo Mexicano, he would maintain that federal courts' equity power is frozen at 1789, and any remedy without a clear founding-era analogue—including an expansive view of "complete relief"—is illegitimate.
Article III and the "Rightful Position"
He would further ground his argument in Article III's case-or-controversy limitation, asserting that a court's role is only to redress the "plaintiff's particular injury." The goal of equity, from this perspective, is to restore a plaintiff to their "rightful position," not to use one individual's case to halt a national policy in its entirety.
Lower Court Developments: Predictions Materializing?
The "Indivisibility" Argument in Practice
Following this decision, litigants challenging broad federal policies will likely pivot to arguing that their injury is "indivisible" from the injuries of others, making a broad injunction necessary for "complete relief." Thomas's concurrence is a clear signal that he, at least, would view such arguments with extreme skepticism.
Administrative Burden as Justification
Plaintiffs will continue to argue that party-specific relief is unworkable and administratively burdensome for the government to implement. The Thomas concurrence provides a ready-made counterargument for the government and a roadmap for appellate courts looking to reverse injunctions based on such reasoning. The practical complexities Thomas dismisses as insufficient justification are vividly illustrated in the implementation challenges facing Executive Order 14160, where administrative burden could significantly impact healthcare systems and state agencies.
Constitutional Dimensions
The concurrence highlights a fundamental tension in modern constitutional litigation: how to reconcile the party-specific nature of Article III judicial power with the reality of executive actions that create uniform, nationwide harms. Thomas's answer is to prioritize the formal limits on judicial power, even if it leaves many individuals without an effective, timely remedy.
Strategic Assessment
Short-Term Impact
The concurrence will likely force plaintiffs to be more creative and specific in pleading their injuries and requested remedies. It also puts pressure on district courts to explicitly justify why a narrower remedy is "all but impossible" before granting any relief that benefits non-parties.
Long-Term Implications
This concurrence signals a potential future line of attack for the Court: reviewing not just the existence of universal injunctions, but also the scope of supposedly "party-specific" injunctions that are functionally broad. It lays the groundwork for a more granular and restrictive jurisprudence of equitable remedies.
Continue Your Study
For a deeper exploration of Justice Thomas's concurrence and the complete relief doctrine:
Read the Deep Dive Analysis →