Trump v. Cook · ¶45

Neither In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200 (1888), nor White v. Berry, 171 U. S. 366 (1898), says otherwise. Both cases stand for the far more limited proposition, already discussed, that “a court of equity has no jurisdiction over the appointment and removal of public officers,” for such jurisdiction “belongs exclusively to the courts of law.” Sawyer, 124 U. S., at 212; White, 171 U. S., at 376–377. Neither case holds that equity is unavailable in the interim. As Professor Bray has explained, Sawyer and White reflect “equity’s overriding concern about the adequacy of legal remedies.” Bray 246. Because the plaintiffs in those cases had “effective legal remedies” (like mandamus and quo war ranto) to finally settle title to their offices—the only relief they sought—“equity could not intervene.” Ibid. But that was not to preclude equitable remedies for de facto officers, like Cook, who required…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.