Understanding Prophylactic Remedies Through the Looking Glass of Bush v. Gore

Using the context of Bush v. Gore as a vehicle for discussion, Professor Thomas examines the use and legitimacy of prophylactic remedies. In this Article, Professor Thomas advances the argument that the broad prophylactic remedy provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore may be viewed as contrary to the law of remedies in that it operated to negate, rather than enforce, legal rights. In particular, prophylactic remedies which are untailored and unachievable, as in Bush v. Gore, threaten the legitimacy of prophylaxis. Professor Thomas argues that the use of prophylactic remedies itself is not problematic, but concludes that misuse of prophylactic powers can lead to the use of arbitrary and unbounded equitable judicial power