The majority opinion in the nationwide injunction case is based on a finding that there was no such thing as a nationwide injunction in 1789. Was that the proper way to analyze the history of equity courts?
No. The whole point of equity courts, as they evolved in England throughout the centuries, was to provide enough flexibility to do justice when the common law courts could not do so. Different times and circumstances–including a successful rebellion against the existing system and the creation of a written constitution, which did not exist in Britain–call for different remedies. Freezing the remedies available to the judiciary at the standard set in 1789 consequently makes no sense whatsoever, particularly in a case in which fundamental rights were at stake, more than one court had ruled for the petitioners, and administrative chaos is likely to result.