Justice Kennedy

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case arises from serious constitutional violations in California’s prison system. The violations have persisted for years. They remain uncorrected. The appeal comes to this Court from a three-judge District Court order directing California to remedy two ongoing violations of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, a guarantee binding on the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amend-*500men! The violations are the subject of two class actions in two Federal District Courts. The first involves the class of prisoners with serious mental disorders. That case is Coleman v. Brown. The second involves prisoners with serious medical conditions. That ease is Plata v. Brown. The order of the three-judge District Court is applicable to both cases.

After years of litigation, it became apparent that a remedy for the constitutional violations would not be effective absent a reduction in the prison system population. The authority to order release of prisoners as a remedy to cure a systemic violation of the Eighth Amendment is a power reserved to a three-judge district court, not a single-judge district court. 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a). In accordance with that rule, the Coleman and Plata District Judges independently requested that a three-judge court be convened. The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit convened a three-judge court composed of the Coleman and Plata District Judges and a third, Ninth Circuit Judge. Because the two cases are interrelated, their limited consolidation for this purpose has a certain utility in avoiding conflicting decrees and aiding judicial consideration and enforcement. The State in this Court has not objected to consolidation, although the State does argue that the three-judge court was prematurely convened. The State also objects to the substance of the three-judge court order, which requires the State to reduce overcrowding in its prisons.

The appeal presents the question whether the remedial order issued by the three-judge court is consistent with requirements and procedures set forth in a congressional statute, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). 18 U. S. C. § 3626; see Appendix A, infra. The order leaves the choice of means to reduce overcrowding to the discretion of state officials. But absent compliance through new construction, out-of-state transfers, or other means — or modification of the order upon a further showing by the State— *501the State will be required to release some number of prisoners before their full sentences have been served. High recidivism rates must serve as a warning that mistaken or premature release of even one prisoner can cause injury and harm. The release of prisoners in large numbers — assuming the State finds no other way to comply with the order — is a matter of undoubted, grave concern.

At the time of trial, California’s correctional facilities held some 156,000 persons. This is nearly double the number that California’s prisons were designed to hold, and California has been ordered to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity. By the three-judge court’s own estimate, the required population reduction could be as high as 46,000 persons. Although the State has reduced the population by at least 9,000 persons during the pendency of this appeal, this means a further reduction of 37,000 persons could be required. As will be noted, the reduction need not be accomplished in an indiscriminate manner or in these substantial numbers if satisfactory, alternative remedies or means for compliance are devised. The State may employ measures, including good-time credits and diversion of low-risk offenders and technical parole violators to community-based programs, that will mitigate the order’s impact. The population reduction potentially required is nevertheless of unprecedented sweep and extent.

Yet so too is the continuing injury and harm resulting from these serious constitutional violations. For years the medical and mental health care provided by California’s prisons has fallen short of minimum constitutional requirements and has failed to meet prisoners’ basic health needs. Needless suffering and death have been the well-documented result. Over the whole course of years during which this litigation has been pending, no other remedies have been found to be sufficient. Efforts to remedy the violation have been frustrated by severe overcrowding in California’s prison system. Short-term gains in the provision of care have been *502eroded by the long-term effects of severe and pervasive overcrowding.

Overcrowding has overtaken the limited resources of prison staff; imposed demands well beyond the capacity of medical and mental health facilities; and created unsanitary and unsafe conditions that make progress in the provision of care difficult or impossible to achieve. The overcrowding is the “primary cause of the violation of a Federal right,” 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(B)(E)(i), specifically the severe and unlawful mistreatment of prisoners through grossly inadequate provision of medical and mental health care.

This Court now holds that the PLRA does authorize the relief afforded in this case and that the court-mandated population limit is necessary to remedy the violation of prisoners’ constitutional rights. The order of the three-judge court, subject to the right of the State to seek its modification in appropriate circumstances, must be affirmed.

I

A

The degree of overcrowding in California’s prisons is exceptional. California’s prisons are designed to house a population just under 80,000, but at the time of the three-judge court’s decision the population was almost double that. The State’s prisons had operated at around 200% of design capacity for at least 11 years. Prisoners are crammed into spaces neither designed nor intended to house inmates. As many as 200 prisoners may live in a gymnasium, monitored by as few as two or three correctional officers. App. 1337-1338, 1350; see Appendix B, infra. As many as 54 prisoners may share a single toilet. App. 1337.

The Corrections Independent Review Panel, a body appointed by the Governor and composed of correctional consultants and representatives from state agencies, concluded that California’s prisons are “ ‘severely overcrowded, imperiling the safety of both correctional employees and in*503mates.’ ”1 App. to Juris. Statement, O. T. 2009, No. 09-416, p. 56a (hereinafter Juris. App.). In 2006, then-Governor Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency in the prisons, as “ ‘immediate action is necessary to prevent death and harm caused by California’s severe prison overcrowding.’” Id., at 61a. The consequences of overcrowding identified by the Governor include “ ‘increased, substantial risk for transmission of infectious illness’ ” and a suicide rate “ ‘approaching an average of one per week.’ ” Ibid.

Prisoners in California with serious mental illness do not receive minimal, adequate care. Because of a shortage of treatment beds, suieidal inmates may be held for prolonged periods in telephone-booth-sized cages without toilets. See *504Appendix C, infra. A psychiatric expert reported observing' an inmate who had been held in such a cage for nearly 24 hours, standing in a pool of his own urine, unresponsive and nearly catatonic. Prison officials explained they had “ 'no place to put him.’ ” App. 593. Other inmates awaiting care may be held for months in administrative segregation, where they endure harsh and isolated conditions and receive only limited mental health services. Wait times for mental health care range as high as 12 months. Id., at 704. In 2006, the suicide rate in California’s prisons was nearly 80% higher than the national average for prison populations; and a court-appointed Special Master found that 72.1% of suicides involved “some measure of inadequate assessment, treatment, or intervention, and were therefore most probably foreseeable and/or preventable.”2 Id., at 1781.

Prisoners suffering from physical illness also receive severely deficient care. California’s prisons were designed to meet the medical needs of a population at 100% of design capacity and so have only half the clinical space needed to treat the current population. Id., at 1024. A correctional officer testified that, in one prison, up to 50 sick inmates may be held together in a 12- by 20-foot cage for up to five hours awaiting treatment. Tr. 597-599. The number of staff is *505inadequate, and prisoners face significant delays in access to care. A prisoner with severe abdominal pain died after a 5-week delay in referral to a specialist; a prisoner with “ ‘constant and extreme’ ” chest pain died after an 8-hour delay in evaluation by a doctor; and a prisoner died of testicular cancer after a “failure of MDs to work up for cancer in a young man with 17 months of testicular pain.”3 California Prison Health Care Receivership Corp., K. Imai, Analysis of CDCR Death Reviews 2006, pp. 6-7 (Aug. 2007). Doctor Ronald Shansky, former medical director of the Illinois state prison system, surveyed death reviews for California prisoners. He concluded that extreme departures from the standard of care were “widespread,” Tr. 430, and that the proportion of “possibly preventable or preventable” deaths was “extremely high,” id., at 429.4 Many more prisoners, suffering *506from severe but not life-threatening conditions, experience prolonged illness and unnecessary pain.

B

These conditions are the subject of two federal cases. The first to commence, Coleman v. Brown, was filed in 1990. Coleman involves the class of seriously mentally ill persons in California prisons. Over 15 years ago, in 1995, after a 39-day trial, the Coleman District Court found “overwhelming evidence of the systemic failure to deliver necessary care to mentally ill inmates” in California prisons. Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282, 1316 (ED Cal.). The prisons were “seriously and chronically understaffed,” id., at 1306, and had “no effective method for ensuring . . . the competence of their staff,” id., at 1308. The prisons had failed to implement necessary suicide-prevention procedures, “due in large measure to the severe under staffing.” Id., at 1315. Mentally ill inmates “languished for months, or even years, without access to necessary care.” Id., at 1316. “They suffer from severe hallucinations, [and] they decompensate into catatonic states.” Ibid. The court appointed a Special Master to oversee development and implementation of a remedial plan of action.

*507In 2007,12 years after his appointment, the Special Master in Coleman filed a report stating that, after years of slow improvement, the state of mental health care in California’s prisons was deteriorating. App. 489. The Special Master ascribed this change to increased overcrowding. The rise in population had led to greater demand for care, and existing programming space and staffing levels were inadequate to keep pace. Prisons had retained more mental health staff, but the “growth of the resource [had] not matched the rise in demand.” Id., at 482. At the very time the need for space was rising, the need to house the expanding population had also caused a “reduction of programming space now occupied by inmate bunks.” Id., at 479. The State was “facing a four to five-year gap in the availability of sufficient beds to meet the treatment needs of many inmates/patients.” Id., at 481. “[increasing numbers of truly psychotic inmate/patients are trapped in [lower levels of treatment] that cannot meet their needs.” Ibid. The Special Master concluded that many early “achievements have succumbed to the inexorably rising tide of population, leaving behind growing frustration and despair.” Id., at 489.

C

The second action, Plata v. Brown, involves the class of state prisoners with serious medical conditions. After this action commenced in 2001, the State conceded that deficiencies in prison medical care violated prisoners’ Eighth Amendment rights. The State stipulated to a remedial injunction. The State failed to comply with that injunction, and in 2005 the court appointed a Receiver to oversee remedial efforts. The court found that “the California prison medical care system is broken beyond repair,” resulting in an “unconscionable degree of suffering and death.” App. 917. The court found: “[I]t is an uneontested fact that, on average, an inmate in one of California’s prisons needlessly dies every six to seven days due to constitutional deficiencies in the *508[California prisons’] medical delivery system.” Ibid. And the court made findings regarding specific instances of neglect, including the following:

“[A] San Quentin prisoner with hypertension, diabetes and renal failure was prescribed two different medications that actually served to exacerbate his renal failure. An optometrist noted the patient’s retinal bleeding due to very high blood pressure and referred him for immediate evaluation, but this evaluation never took place. It was not until a year later that the patient’s renal failure was recognized, at which point he was referred to a nephrologist on an urgent basis; he should have been seen by the specialist within 14 days but the consultation never happened and the patient died three months later,” Id., at 928 (citations omitted).

Prisons were unable to retain sufficient numbers of competent medical staff, id., at 937, and would “hire any doctor who had ‘a license, a pulse and a pair of shoes,' ” id., at 926. Medical facilities lacked “necessary medical equipment” and did “not meet basic sanitation standards.” Id., at 944. “Exam tables and counter tops, where prisoners with . . . communicable diseases are treated, [were] not routinely disinfected.” Ibid.

In 2008, three years after the District Court’s decision, the Receiver described continuing deficiencies in the health care provided by California prisons:

“Timely access is not assured. The number of medical personnel has been inadequate, and competence has not been assured.... Adequate housing for the disabled and aged does not exist. The medical facilities, when they exist at all, are in an abysmal state of disrepair. Basic medical equipment is often not available or used. Medications and other treatment options are too often not available when needed. . . . Indeed, it is a misnomer to call the existing chaos a ‘medical delivery system' — it is *509more an act of desperation than a system.” Record in No. 3:01-cv-01351-TEH (ND Cal.), Doc. 1136, p. 9.

A report by the Receiver detailed the impact of overcrowding on efforts to remedy the violation. The Receiver explained that “overcrowding, combined with staffing shortages, has created a culture of cynicism, fear, and despair which makes hiring and retaining competent clinicians extremely difficult.” App. 1031. “[0]vercrowding, and the resulting day to day operational chaos of the [prison system], creates regular 'crisis’ situations which . . . take time [and] energy . . . away from important remedial programs.” Id., at 1035. Overcrowding had increased the incidence of infectious disease, id., at 1037-1038, and had led to rising prison violence and greater reliance by custodial staff on lockdowns, which “inhibit the delivery of medical care and increase the staffing necessary for such care,” id., at 1037. “Every day,” the Receiver reported, “California prison wardens and health care managers make the difficult decision as to which of the class actions, Coleman ... or Plata they will fail to comply with because of staff shortages and patient loads.” Id., at 1038.

D

The Coleman and Plata plaintiffs, believing that a remedy for unconstitutional medical and mental health care could not be achieved without reducing overcrowding, moved their respective District Courts to convene a three-judge court empowered under the PLRA to order reductions in the prison population. The judges in both actions granted the request, and the cases were consolidated before a single three-judge court. The State has not challenged the validity of the consolidation in proceedings before this Court, so its propriety is not presented by this appeal.

The three-judge court heard 14 days of testimony and issued a 184-page opinion, making extensive findings of fact. The court ordered California to reduce its prison population *510to 137.5% of the prisons’ design capacity within two years. Assuming the State does not increase capacity through new construction, the order requires a population reduction of 38,000 to 46,000 persons. Because it appears all but certain that the State cannot complete sufficient construction to comply fully with the order, the prison population will have to be reduced to at least some extent. The court did not order the State to achieve this reduction in any particular manner. Instead, the court ordered the State to formulate a plan for compliance and submit its plan for approval by the court.

The State appealed to this Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and the Court postponed consideration of the question of jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits. Schwarzenegger v. Plata, 560 U. S. 964 (2010).

II

As a consequence of their own actions, prisoners may be deprived of rights that are fundamental to liberty. Yet the law and the Constitution demand recognition of certain other rights. Prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons. Respect for that dignity animates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. “‘The basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man.’” Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U. S. 304, 311 (2002) (quoting Prop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 100 (1958) (plurality opinion)).

To incarcerate, society takes from prisoners the means to provide for their own needs. Prisoners are dependent on the State for food, clothing, and necessary medical care. A prison’s failure to provide sustenance for inmates “may actually produce physical ‘torture or a lingering death.’” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97, 103 (1976) (quoting In re Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436, 447 (1890)); see generally A. Eisner, Gates of Injustice: The Crisis in America’s Prisons (2004), Just as a prisoner may starve if not fed, he or she may suffer or die if *511not provided adequate medical care. A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society.

If government fails to fulfill this obligation, the courts have a responsibility to remedy the resulting Eighth Amendment violation. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U. S. 678, 687, n. 9 (1978). Courts must be sensitive to the State’s interest in punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as the need for deference to experienced and expert prison administrators faced with the difficult and dangerous task of housing large numbers of convicted criminals. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 547-548 (1979). Courts nevertheless must not shrink from their obligation to “enforce the constitutional rights of all ‘persons/ including prisoners.” Cruz v. Beto, 405 U. S. 319, 321 (1972) (per curiam). Courts may not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration.

Courts faced with the sensitive task of remedying unconstitutional prison conditions must consider a range of available options, including appointment of special masters or receivers and the possibility of consent decrees. When necessary to ensure compliance with a constitutional mandate, courts may enter orders placing limits on a prison’s population. By its terms, the PLEA restricts the circumstances in which a court may enter an order “that has the purpose or effect of reducing or limiting the prison population.” 18 U. S. C. § 3626(g)(4). The order in this case does not necessarily require the State to release any prisoners. The State may comply by raising the design capacity of its prisons or by transferring prisoners to county facilities or facilities in other States. Because the order limits the prison population as a percentage of design capacity, it nonetheless has the “effect of reducing or limiting the prison population.” Ibid.

*512Under the PLRA, only a three-judge court may enter an order limiting a prison population. § 3626(a)(3)(B). Before a three-judge court may he convened, a district court first must have entered an order for less intrusive relief that failed to remedy the constitutional violation and must have given the defendant a reasonable time to comply with its prior orders. § 3626(a)(3)(A). The party requesting a three-judge court must then submit “materials sufficient to demonstrate that [these requirements] have been met.” § 3626(a)(3)(C). If the district court concludes that the materials are, in fact, sufficient, a three-judge court may be convened. Ibid.; see also 28 U. S. C. § 2284(b)(1) (stating that a three-judge court may not be convened if the district court “determines that three judges are not required”); 17A C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper, & V. Amar, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4235 (3d ed. 2007).

The three-judge court must then find by clear and convincing evidence that “crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right” and that “no other relief will remedy the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(3)(E). As with any award of prospective relief under the PLRA, the relief “shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.” §3626(a)(1)(A). The three-judge court must therefore find that the relief is “narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary . . ., and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” Ibid. In making this determination, the three-judge court must give “substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.” Ibid. Applying these standards, the three-judge court found a population limit appropriate, necessary, and authorized in this case.

This Court’s review of the three-judge court’s legal determinations is de novo, but factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U. S. 564, *513573-574 (1985). Deference to trial court factfinding reflects an understanding that “[t]he trial judge’s major role is the determination of fact, and with experience in fulfilling that role comes expertise.” Id., at 574. The three-judge court oversaw two weeks of trial and heard at considerable length from California prison officials, as well as experts in the field of correctional administration. The judges had the opportunity to ask relevant questions of those witnesses. Two of the judges had overseen the ongoing remedial efforts of the Receiver and Special Master. The three-judge court was well situated to make the difficult factual judgments necessary to fashion a remedy for this complex and intractable constitutional violation. The three-judge court’s findings of fact may be reversed only if this Court is left with a “ ‘definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’ ” Id., at 573 (quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U. S. 364, 395 (1948)).

A

The State contends that it was error to convene the three-judge court without affording it more time to comply with the prior orders in Coleman and Plata.

1

The parties dispute this Court’s jurisdiction to review the determinations of the Coleman and Plata District Courts that a three-judge court should be convened. Plaintiffs claim the State was required to raise this issue first in the Court of Appeals by appealing the orders of the District Courts. When exercising jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1253, however, this Court ‘‘has not hesitated to exercise jurisdiction ‘to determine the authority of the court below,’” including whether the three-judge court was properly constituted. Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, 419 U. S. 90, 95, n. 12 (1974) (quoting Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31, 34 (1962) (per curiam)); see also Gully v. Interstate *514Natural Gas Co., 292 U. S. 16, 18 (1934) (per curiam) (“The case is analogous to those in which this Court, finding that the court below has acted without jurisdiction, exercises its appellate jurisdiction to correct the improper action”). The merits of the decision to convene the three-judge court, therefore, are properly before this Court.

2

Before a three-judge court may be convened to consider whether to enter a population limit, the PLRA requires that the court have “previously entered an order for less intrusive relief that has failed to remedy the deprivation of the Federal right sought to be remedied.” 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(3)(A)(i). This provision refers to “an order.” It is satisfied if the court has entered one order, and this single order has “failed to remedy” the constitutional violation. The defendant must also have had “a reasonable amount of time to comply with the previous court orders.” § 3626(a)(3)(A)(ii). This provision refers to the court’s “orders.” It requires that the defendant have been given a reasonable time to comply with all of the court’s orders. Together, these requirements ensure that the “ ‘last resort remedy’” of a population limit is not imposed “‘as a first step.’” Inmates of Occoquan v. Barry, 844 F. 2d 828, 843 (CADC 1988).

The first of these conditions, the previous order requirement of § 3626(a)(3)(A)(i), was satisfied in Coleman by appointment of a Special Master in 1995, and it was satisfied in Plata by approval of a consent decree and stipulated injunction in 2002. Both orders were intended to remedy the constitutional violations. Both were given ample time to succeed. When the three-judge court was convened, 12 years had passed since the appointment of the Coleman Special Master, and 5 years had passed since the approval of the Plata consent decree. The State does not claim that either *515order achieved a remedy. Although the PLRA entitles a State to terminate remedial orders such as these after two years unless the district court finds that the relief “remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right,” § 3626(b)(3), California has not attempted to obtain relief on this basis.

The State claims instead that the second condition, the reasonable time requirement of § 3626(a)(3)(A)(ii), was not met because other, later remedial efforts should have been given more time to succeed. In 2006, the Coleman District Judge approved a revised plan of action calling for construction of new facilities, hiring of new staff, and implementation of new procedures. That same year, the Plata District Judge selected and appointed a Receiver to oversee the State’s ongoing remedial efforts. When the three-judge court was convened, the Receiver had filed a preliminary plan of action calling for new construction, hiring of additional staff, and other procedural reforms.

Although both the revised plan of action in Coleman and the appointment of the Receiver in Plata were new developments in the courts’ remedial efforts, the basic plan to solve the crisis through construction, hiring, and procedural reforms remained unchanged. These efforts had been ongoing for years; the failed consent decree in Plata had called for implementation of new procedures and hiring of additional staff; and the Coleman Special Master had issued over 70 orders directed at achieving a remedy through construction, hiring, and procedural reforms. The Coleman Special Master and Plata Receiver were unable to provide assurance that further, substantially similar efforts would yield success absent a population reduction. Instead, the Coleman Special Master explained that “many of the clinical advances ... painfully accomplished over the past decade are slip-sliding away” as a result of overcrowding. App. 481-482. And the Plata Receiver indicated that, absent a reduction in over*516crowding, a successful remedial effort could “all but bankrupt” the State of California. App. 1053.

Having engaged in remedial efforts for 5 years in Plata and 12 in Coleman, the District Courts were not required to wait to see whether their more recent efforts would yield equal disappointment. When a court attempts to remedy an entrenched constitutional violation through reform of a complex institution, such as this statewide prison system, it may be necessary in the ordinary course to issue multiple orders directing and adjusting ongoing remedial efforts. Each new order must be given a reasonable time to succeed, but reasonableness must be assessed in light of the entire history of the court’s remedial efforts. A contrary reading of the reasonable time requirement would in effect require district courts to impose a moratorium on new remedial orders before issuing a population limit. This unnecessary period of inaction would delay an eventual remedy and would prolong the courts’ involvement, serving neither the State nor the prisoners. Congress did not require this unreasonable result when it used the term “reasonable."

The Coleman and Plata courts had a solid basis to doubt that additional efforts to build new facilities and hire new staff would achieve a remedy. Indeed, although five years have now passed since the appointment of the Plata Receiver and approval of the revised plan of action in Coleman, there is no indication that the constitutional violations have been cured. A report filed by the Coleman Special Master in July 2009 describes ongoing violations, including an “absence of timely access to appropriate levels of care at every point in the system.” App. 807. A report filed by the Plata Receiver in October 2010 likewise describes ongoing deficiencies in the provision of medical care and concludes that there are simply “too many prisoners for the healthcare infrastructure.” App. 1655. The Coleman and Plata courts acted reasonably when they convened a three-judge court without further delay.

*517B

Once a three-judge court has been convened, the court must find additional requirements satisfied before it may impose a population limit. The first of these requirements is that “crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right.” 18 U. S. C. §3626(a)(3)(E)(i).

1

The three-judge court found the primary cause requirement satisfied by the evidence at trial. The court found that overcrowding strains inadequate medical and mental health facilities; overburdens limited clinical and custodial staff; and creates violent, unsanitary, and chaotic conditions that contribute to the constitutional violations and frustrate efforts to fashion a remedy. The three-judge court also found that “until the problem of overcrowding is overcome it will be impossible to provide constitutionally compliant care to California’s prison population.” Juris. App. 141a.

The parties dispute the standard of review applicable to this determination. With respect to the three-judge court’s factual findings, this Court’s review is necessarily deferential. It is not this Court’s place to “duplicate the role” of the trial court. Anderson, 470 U. S., at 573. The ultimate issue of primary cause presents a mixed question of law and fact; but there, too, “the mix weighs heavily on the 'fact’ side.” Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U. S. 116, 148 (1999) (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring in judgment). Because the “district court is 'better positioned’... to decide the issue,” our review of the three-judge court’s primary cause determination is deferential. Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U. S. 225, 233 (1991).

The record documents the severe impact of burgeoning demand on the provision of care. At the time of trial, vacancy rates for medical and mental health staff ranged as high as 20% for surgeons, 25% for physicians, 39% for nurse prac*518titioners, and 54.1% for psychiatrists. Juris. App. 105a, 108a. These percentages are based on the number of positions budgeted by the State. Dr. Ronald Shansky, former medical director of the Illinois prison system, concluded that these numbers understate the severity of the crisis because the State has not budgeted sufficient staff to meet demand.5 According to Dr. Shansky, “even if the prisons were able to fill all of their vacant health care positions, which they have not been able to do to date, . . . the prisons would still be unable to handle the level of need given the current overcrowding.” Record in No. 2:90-cv-00520-LKK-JFM (ED Cal.), Doc. 3231-13, p. 19 (hereinafter Doc. 3231-13). Dr. Craig Haney, a professor of psychology, reported that mental health staff are “managing far larger caseloads than is appropriate or effective.” App. 596. A prison psychiatrist told Dr. Haney that “ ‘we are doing about 50% of what we should be doing.’ ” Ibid. In the context of physical care Dr. Shansky agreed that “demand for care, particularly for the high priority cases, continues to overwhelm the resources available.” Id., at 1408.

Even on the assumption that vacant positions could be filled, the evidence suggested there would be insufficient space for the necessary additional staff to perform their jobs. The Plata Receiver, in his report on overcrowding, concluded that even the “newest and most modern prisons” had been “designed with clinic space which is only one-half that necessary for the real-life capacity of the prisons.” App. 1023 (emphasis deleted). Dr. Haney reported that “[ejach one of the facilities I toured was short of significant amounts of space needed to perform otherwise critical tasks and re*519sponsibilities.” Id., at 597-598. In one facility, staff cared for 7,525 prisoners in space designed for one-third as many. Juris. App. 93a. Staff operate out of converted storage rooms, closets, bathrooms, shower rooms, and visiting centers. These makeshift facilities impede the effective delivery of care and place the safety of medical professionals in jeopardy, compounding the difficulty of hiring additional staff.

This shortfall of resources relative to demand contributes to significant delays in treatment. Mentally ill prisoners are housed in administrative segregation while awaiting transfer to scarce mental health treatment beds for appropriate care. One correctional officer indicated that he had kept mentally ill prisoners in segregation for ‘“6 months or more.’” App. 594. Other prisoners awaiting care are held in tiny, phone-booth-sized cages. The record documents instances of prisoners committing suicide while awaiting treatment.6

Delays are no less severe in the context of physical care. Prisons have backlogs of up to 700 prisoners waiting to see a doctor. Doc. 3231-13, at 21. A review of referrals for urgent specialty care at one prison revealed that only 105 of 316 pending referrals had a scheduled appointment, and only 2 had an appointment scheduled to occur within 14 days. Id., at 25-26. Urgent specialty referrals at one prison had been pending for six months to a year. Id., at 30.

Crowding also creates unsafe and unsanitary living conditions that hamper effective delivery of medical and mental health care. A medical expert described living quarters in converted gymnasiums or dayrooms, where large numbers of prisoners may share just a few toilets and showers, as *520“‘breeding grounds for disease.’”7 Juris. App. 102a. Cramped conditions promote unrest and violence, making it difficult for prison officials to monitor and control the prison population. On any given day, prisoners in the general prison population may become ill, thus entering the plaintiff class; and overcrowding may prevent immediate medical attention necessary to avoid suffering, death, or spread of disease. After one prisoner was assaulted in a crowded gymnasium, prison staff did not even learn of the injury until the prisoner had been dead for several hours. Tr. 382. Living in crowded, unsafe, and unsanitary conditions can cause prisoners with latent mental illnesses to worsen and develop overt symptoms. Crowding may also impede efforts to improve delivery of care. Two prisoners committed suicide by hanging after being placed in cells that had been identified as requiring a simple fix to remove attachment points that could support a noose. The repair was not made because doing so would involve removing prisoners from the cells, and there was no place to put them. Id., at 769-777. More generally, Jeanne Woodford, the former acting secretary of California’s prisons, testified that there “‘are simply too many issues that arise from such a large number of prisoners,’” and that, as a result, “‘management spends virtually all of its time fighting fires instead of engaging in thoughtful decision-making and planning’” of the sort needed to fashion an effective remedy for these constitutional violations. Juris. App. 82a.

*521Increased violence also requires increased reliance on lock-downs to keep order, and lockdowns further impede the effective delivery of care. In 2006, prison officials instituted 449 lockdowns. Id., at 116a. The average lockdown lasted 12 days, and 20 lockdowns lasted 60 days or longer. Ibid. During lockdowns, staff must either escort prisoners to medical facilities or bring medical staff to the prisoners. Either procedure puts additional strain on already overburdened medical and custodial staff. Some programming for the mentally ill even may be canceled altogether during lock-downs, and staff may be unable to supervise the delivery of psychotropic medications.

The effects of overcrowding are particularly acute in the prisons’ reception centers, intake areas that process 140,000 new or returning prisoners every year. Id., at 85a. Crowding in these areas runs as high as 300% of design capacity. Id., at 86a. Living conditions are “‘toxic,’” and a lack of treatment space impedes efforts to identify inmate medical or mental health needs and provide even rudimentary care. Id., at 92a. The former warden of San Quentin reported that doctors in that prison’s reception center “ ‘were unable to keep up with physicals or provid[e] any kind of chronic care follow-up.’ ” Id., at 90a. Inmates spend long periods of time in these areas awaiting transfer to the general population. Some prisoners are held in the reception centers for their entire period of incarceration.

Numerous experts testified that crowding is the primary cause of the constitutional violations. The former warden of San Quentin and former acting secretary of the California prisons concluded that crowding “makes it ‘virtually impossible for the organization to develop, much less implement, a plan to provide prisoners with adequate care.’ ” Id., at 83a. The former executive director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice testified that “‘[e] very thing revolves around overcrowding’ ” and that “ ‘overcrowding is the primary cause of the medical and mental health care viola*522tions.’” Id., at 127a. The former head of corrections in Pennsylvania, Washington, and Maine testified that overcrowding is “ 'overwhelming the system both in terms of sheer numbers, in terms of the space available, in terms of providing healthcare.'” Ibid. And the current secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections testified that “ “the biggest inhibiting factor right now in California being able to deliver appropriate mental health and medical care is the severe overcrowding.'” Id., at 82a.

2

The State attempts to undermine the substantial evidence presented at trial, and the three-judge court's findings of fact, by complaining that the three-judge court did not allow it to present evidence of current prison conditions. This suggestion lacks a factual basis.

The three-judge court properly admitted evidence of current conditions as relevant to the issues before it. The three-judge court allowed discovery until a few months before trial; expert witnesses based their conclusions on recent observations of prison conditions; the court admitted recent reports on prison conditions by the Plata Receiver and Coleman Special Master; and both parties presented testimony related to current conditions, including understaffing, inadequate facilities, and unsanitary and unsafe living conditions. See supra, at 504-507, 517-521 and this page. Dr. Craig Haney, for example, based his expert report on tours of eight California prisons. App. 539. These tours occurred as late as August 2008, two weeks before Dr. Haney submitted his report and less than four months before the first day of trial. Id., at 585; see also id., at 563, 565, 580 (July tours). Other experts submitted reports based on similar observations. See, e. g., Doc. 3231-13, at 9 (Dr. Shansky); App. 646 (Dr. Stewart); id., at 1245 (Austin); id., at 1312 (Lehman).

The three-judge court's opinion cited and relied on this evidence of current conditions. The court relied extensively *523on the expert witness reports. See generally Juris. App. 85a-143a. The court cited the most current data available on suicides and preventable deaths in the California prisons. Id., at 123a, 125a. The court relied on statistics on staff vacancies that dated to three months before trial, id., at 105a, 108a, and statistics on shortages of treatment beds for the same period, id., at 97a. These are just examples of the extensive evidence of current conditions that informed every aspect of the judgment of the three-judge court. The three-judge court did not abuse its discretion when it also cited findings made in earlier decisions of the Plata and Coleman District Courts. Those findings remained relevant to establish the nature of these longstanding, continuing constitutional violations.

It is true that the three-judge court established a cutoff date for discovery a few months before trial. The order stated that site inspections of prisons would be allowed until that date, and that evidence of “changed prison conditions” after that date would not be admitted. App. 1190. The court also excluded evidence not pertinent to the issue whether a population limit is appropriate under the PLRA, including evidence relevant solely to the existence of an ongoing constitutional violation. The court reasoned that its decision was limited to the issue of remedy and that the merits of the constitutional violation had already been determined. The three-judge court made clear that all such evidence would be considered “[t]o the extent that it illuminates questions that are properly before the court.” Id., at 2339.

Both rulings were within the sound discretion of the three-judge court. Orderly trial management may require discovery deadlines and a clean distinction between litigation of the merits and the remedy. The State in fact represented to the three-judge court that it would be “appropriate” to cut off discovery before trial because “like plaintiffs, we, too, are really gearing up and going into a pretrial mode.” Id., at 1683. And if the State truly believed there was no longer *524a violation, it could have argued to the Coleman and Plata District Courts that a three-judge court should not be convened because the District Courts’ prior orders had not "failed to remedy the deprivation” of prisoners’ constitutional rights. 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(3)(A)(i); see also supra, at 514-515. Once the three-judge court was convened, that court was not required to reconsider the merits. Its role was solely to consider the propriety and necessity of a population limit.

The State does not point to any significant evidence that it was unable to present and that would have changed the outcome of the proceedings. To the contrary, the record and opinion make clear that the decision of the three-judge court was based on current evidence pertaining to ongoing constitutional violations.

3

The three-judge court acknowledged that the violations were caused by factors in addition to overcrowding and that reducing crowding in the prisons would not entirely cure the violations. This is consistent with the reports of the Coleman Special Master and Plata Receiver, both of whom concluded that even a significant reduction in the prison population would not remedy the violations absent continued efforts to train staff, improve facilities, and reform procedures. App. 487, 1054.8 The three-judge court nevertheless found *525that overcrowding was the primary cause in the sense of being the foremost cause of the violation.

This understanding of the primary cause requirement is consistent with the text of the PLRA. The State in fact concedes that it proposed this very definition of primary cause to the three-judge court. “Primary” is defined as “[f]irst or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal.” American Heritage Dictionary 1393 (4th ed. 2000); see also Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1800 (2002) (defining “primary” as “first in rank or importance”); 12 Oxford English Dictionary 472 (2d ed. 1989) (defining “primary” as “[o]f the first or highest rank or importance; that claims the first consideration; principal, chief”). Overcrowding need only be the foremost, chief, or principal cause of the violation. If Congress had intended to require that crowding be the only cause, it would have said so, assuming in its judgment that definition would be consistent with constitutional limitations.

As this case illustrates, constitutional violations in conditions of confinement are rarely susceptible of simple or straightforward solutions. In addition to overcrowding the failure of California’s prisons to provide adequate medical and mental health care may be ascribed to chronic and worsening budget shortfalls, a lack of political will in favor of reform, inadequate facilities, and systemic administrative failures. The Plata District Judge, in his order appointing the Receiver, compared the problem to “‘a spider web, in which the tension of the various strands is determined by the relationship among all the parts of the web, so that if one pulls on a single strand, the tension of the entire web is redistributed in a new and complex pattern.’” App. 966-967 (quoting Fletcher, The Discretionary Constitution: Institutional Remedies and Judicial Legitimacy, 91 Yale L. J. 635, 645 (1982)); see also Hutto, 437 U. S., at 688 (noting “the interdependence of the conditions producing the violation,” in-*526eluding overcrowding). Only a multifaceted approach aimed at many causes, including overcrowding, will yield a solution.

The PLRA should not be interpreted to place undue restrictions on the authority of federal courts to fashion practical remedies when confronted with complex and intractable constitutional violations. Congress limited the availability of limits on prison populations, but it did not forbid these measures altogether. See 18 U. S. C. § 3626. The House Report accompanying the PLRA explained:

“While prison caps must be the remedy of last resort, a court still retains the power to order this remedy despite its intrusive nature and harmful consequences to the public if, but only if, it is truly necessary to prevent an actual violation of a prisoner’s federal rights.” H. R. Rep. No. 104-21, p. 25 (1995).

Courts should presume that Congress was sensitive to the real-world problems faced by those who would remedy constitutional violations in the prisons and that Congress did not leave prisoners without a remedy for violations of their constitutional rights. A reading of the PLRA that would render population limits unavailable in practice would raise serious constitutional concerns. See, e. g., Bowen v. Michigan Academy of Family Physicians, 476 U. S. 667, 681, n. 12 (1986). A finding that overcrowding is the “primary cause” of a violation is therefore permissible, despite the fact that additional steps will be required to remedy the violation.

C

The three-judge court was also required to find by clear and convincing evidence that “no other relief will remedy the violation of the Federal right.” § 3626(a)(3)(E)(ii).

The State argues that the violation could have been remedied through a combination of new construction, transfers of prisoners out of State, hiring of medical personnel, and continued efforts by the Plata Receiver and Coleman Spe*527cial Master. The order in fact permits the State to comply with the population limit by transferring prisoners to county facilities or facilities in other States, or by constructing new facilities to raise the prisons’ design capacity. And the three-judge court’s order does not bar the State from undertaking any other remedial efforts. If the State does find an adequate remedy other than a population limit, it may seek modification or termination of the three-judge court’s order on that basis. The evidence at trial, however, supports the three-judge court’s conclusion that an order limited to other remedies would not provide effective relief.

The State’s argument that out-of-state transfers provide a less restrictive alternative to a population limit must fail because requiring out-of-state transfers itself qualifies as a population limit under the PLRA.9 Such an order “has the purpose or effect of reducing or limiting the prison population, or . . . directs the release from or nonadmission of prisoners to a prison.” § 3626(g)(4). The same is true of transfers to county facilities. Transfers provide a means to reduce the prison population in compliance with the three-judge court’s order. They are not a less restrictive alternative to that order.

Even if out-of-state transfers could be regarded as a less restrictive alternative, the three-judge court found no evidence of plans for transfers in numbers sufficient to relieve overcrowding. The State complains that the Coleman District Court slowed the rate of transfer by requiring inspections to ensure that the receiving institutions were in compliance with the Eighth Amendment, but the State has made no effort to show that it has the resources and the capacity *528to transfer significantly larger numbers of prisoners absent that condition.

Construction of new facilities, in theory, could alleviate overcrowding, but the three-judge court found no realistic possibility that California would be able to build itself out of this crisis. At the time of the court’s decision the State had plans to build new medical and housing facilities, but funding for some plans had not been secured and funding for other plans had been delayed by the legislature for years. Particularly in light of California’s ongoing fiscal crisis, the three-judge court deemed “chimerical” any “remedy that requires significant additional spending by the state.” Juris. App. 151a. Events subsequent to the three-judge court’s decision have confirmed this conclusion. In October 2010, the State notified the Coleman District Court that a substantial component of its construction plans had been delayed indefinitely by the legislature. And even if planned construction were to be completed, the Plata Receiver found that many so-called “expansion” plans called for cramming more prisoners into existing prisons without expanding administrative and support facilities. Juris. App. 151a-152a. The former acting secretary of the California prisons explained that these plans would “‘compound the burdens imposed on prison administrators and line staff'” by adding to the already overwhelming prison population, creating new barriers to achievement of a remedy. Id., at 152a.

The three-judge court also rejected additional hiring as a realistic means to achieve a remedy. The State for years had been unable to fill positions necessary for the adequate provision of medical and mental health care, and the three-judge court found no reason to expect a change. Although the State points to limited gains in staffing between 2007 and 2008, the record shows that the prison system remained chronically understaffed through trial in 2008. See supra, at 517-518. The three-judge court found that violence and other negative conditions caused by crowding made it diffi*529cult to hire and retain needed staff The court also concluded that there would be insufficient space for additional staff to work even if adequate personnel could somehow be retained. Additional staff cannot help to remedy the violation if they have no space in which to see and treat patients.

The three-judge court also did not err, much less commit clear error, when it concluded that, absent a population reduction, continued efforts by the Receiver and Special Master would not achieve a remedy. Both the Receiver and the Special Master filed reports stating that overcrowding posed a significant barrier to their efforts. The Plata Receiver stated that he was determined to achieve a remedy even without a population reduction, but he warned that such an effort would “all but bankrupt” the State. App. 1053. The Coleman Special Master noted even more serious concerns, stating that previous remedial efforts had “succumbed to the inexorably rising tide of population.” App. 489. Both reports are persuasive evidence that, absent a reduction in overcrowding, any remedy might prove unattainable and would at the very least require vast expenditures of resources by the State. Nothing in the long history of the Coleman and Plata actions demonstrates any real possibility that the necessary resources would be made available.

The State claims that, even if each of these measures were unlikely to remedy the violation, they would succeed in doing so if combined together. Aside from asserting this proposition, the State offers no reason to believe it is so. Attempts to remedy the violations in Plata have been ongoing for nine years. In Coleman, remedial efforts have been ongoing for 16. At one time, it may have been possible to hope that these violations would be cured without a reduction in overcrowding. A long history of failed remedial orders, together with substantial evidence of overcrowding’s deleterious effects on the provision of care, compels a different conclusion today.

*530The common thread connecting the State’s proposed remedial efforts is that they would require the State to expend large amounts of money absent a reduction in overcrowding. The Court cannot ignore the political and fiscal reality behind this case. California’s Legislature has not been willing or able to allocate the resources necessary to meet this crisis absent a reduction in overcrowding. There is no reason to believe it will begin to do so now, when the State of California is facing an unprecedented budgetary shortfall. As noted above, the legislature recently failed to allocate funds for planned new construction. Supra, at 528. Without a reduction in overcrowding, there will be no efficacious remedy for the unconstitutional care of the sick and mentally ill in California’s prisons.

D

The PLRA states that no prospective relief shall issue with respect to prison conditions unless it is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of a federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation. 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a). When determining whether these requirements are met, courts must “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system.” Ibid.

1

The three-judge court acknowledged that its order “is likely to affect inmates without medical conditions or serious mental illness." Juris. App. 172a. This is because reducing California’s prison population will require reducing the number of prisoners outside the class through steps such as parole reform, sentencing reform, use of good-time credits, or other means to be determined by the State. Reducing overcrowding will also have positive effects beyond facilitating timely and adequate access to medical care, including reducing the incidence of prison violence and ameliorating unsafe living conditions. According to the State, these collateral *531consequences are evidence that the order sweeps more broadly than necessary.

The population limit imposed by the three-judge court does not fail narrow tailoring simply because it will have positive effects beyond the plaintiff class. Narrow tailoring requires a “ ‘ “fit” between the [remedy’s] ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends.’” Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N. Y. v. Fox, 492 U. S. 469, 480 (1989). The scope of the remedy must be proportional to the scope of the violation, and the order must extend no further than necessary to remedy the violation. This Court has rejected remedial orders that unnecessarily reach out to improve prison conditions other than those that violate the Constitution. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U. S. 343, 357 (1996). But the precedents do not suggest that a narrow and otherwise proper remedy for a constitutional violation is invalid simply because it will have collateral effects.

Nor does anything in the text of the PLRA require that result. The PLRA states that a remedy shall extend no further than necessary to remedy the violation of the rights of a “particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.” 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). This means only that the scope of the order must be determined with reference to the constitutional violations established by the specific plaintiffs before the court.

This case is unlike cases where courts have impermissibly reached out to control the treatment of persons or institutions beyond the scope of the violation. See Dayton Bd. of Ed. v. Brinkman, 433 U. S. 406, 420 (1977). Even prisoners with no present physical or mental illness may become afflicted, and all prisoners in California are at risk so long as the State continues to provide inadequate care. Prisoners in the general population will become sick, and will become members of the plaintiff classes, with routine frequency; and overcrowding may prevent the timely diagnosis and care necessary to provide effective treatment and to prevent fur*532ther spread of disease. Relief targeted only at present members of the plaintiff classes may therefore fail to adequately protect future class members who will develop serious physical or mental illness. Prisoners who are not sick or mentally ill do not yet have a claim that they have been subjected to care that violates the Eighth Amendment, but in no sense are they remote bystanders in California’s medical care system. They are that system’s next potential victims.

A release order limited to prisoners within the plaintiff classes would, if anything, unduly limit the ability of state officials to determine which prisoners should be released. As the State acknowledges in its brief, “release of seriously mentally ill inmates [would be] likely to create special dangers because of their recidivism rates." Consolidated Reply Brief for Appellants 34. The order of the three-judge court gives the State substantial flexibility to determine who should be released. If the State truly believes that a release order limited to sick and mentally ill inmates would be preferable to the order entered by the three-judge court, the State can move the three-judge court for modification of the order on that basis. The State has not requested this relief from this Court.

The order also is not overbroad because it encompasses the entire prison system, rather than separately assessing the need for a population limit at every institution. The Coleman court found a systemwide violation when it first afforded relief, and in Plata the State stipulated to system-wide relief when it conceded the existence of a violation. Both the Coleman Special Master and the Plata Receiver have filed numerous reports detailing systemwide deficiencies in medical and mental health care. California’s medical care program is run at a systemwide level, and resources are shared among the correctional facilities.

Although the three-judge court’s order addresses the entire California prison system, it affords the State flexibility *533to accommodate differences between institutions. There is no requirement that every facility comply with the 137.5% limit. Assuming no constitutional violation results, some facilities may retain populations in excess of the limit provided other facilities fall sufficiently below it so the system as a whole remains in compliance with the order. This will allow prison officials to shift prisoners to facilities that are better able to accommodate overcrowding, or out of facilities where retaining sufficient medical staff has been difficult. The alternative — a series of institution-specific population limits — would require federal judges to make these choices. Leaving this discretion to state officials does not make the order overbroad.

Nor is the order overbroad because it limits the State’s authority to run its prisons, as the State urges in its brief. While the order does in some respects shape or control the State’s authority in the realm of prison administration, it does so in a manner that leaves much to the State’s discretion. The State may choose how to allocate prisoners between institutions; it may choose whether to increase the prisons’ capacity through construction or reduce the population; and, if it does reduce the population, it may decide what steps to take to achieve the necessary reduction. The order’s limited scope is necessary to remedy a constitutional violation.

As the State implements the order of the three-judge court, time and experience may reveal targeted and effective remedies that will end the constitutional violations even without a significant decrease in the general prison population. The State will be free to move the three-judge court for modification of its order on that basis, and these motions would be entitled to serious consideration. See infra, at 543-545. At this time, the State has not proposed any realistic alternative to the order. The State’s desire to avoid a population limit, justified as according respect to state authority, creates a certain and unacceptable risk of continuing *534violations of the rights of sick and mentally ill prisoners, with the result that many more will die or needlessly suffer. The Constitution does not permit this wrong.

2

In reaching its decision, the three-judge court gave “substantial weight” to any potential adverse impact on public safety from its order. The court devoted nearly 10 days of trial to the issue of public safety, and it gave the question extensive attention in its opinion. Ultimately, the court concluded that it would be possible to reduce the prison population “in a manner that preserves public safety and the operation of the criminal justice system.” Juris. App. 247a-248a.

The PLRA’s requirement that a court give “substantial weight” to public safety does not require the court to certify that its order has no possible adverse impact on the public. A contrary reading would depart from the statute’s text by replacing the word “substantial” with “conclusive.” Whenever a eourt issues an order requiring the State to adjust its incarceration and criminal justice policy, there is a risk that the order will have some adverse impact on public safety in some sectors. This is particularly true when the order requires release of prisoners before their sentence has been served. Persons incarcerated for even one offense may have committed many other crimes prior to arrest and conviction, and some number can be expected to commit further crimes upon release. Yet the PLRA contemplates that courts will retain authority to issue orders necessary to remedy constitutional violations, including authority to issue population limits when necessary. See supra, at 527. A court is required to consider the public safety consequences of its order and to structure, and monitor, its ruling in a way that mitigates those consequences while still achieving an effective remedy of the constitutional violation.

*535This inquiry necessarily involves difficult predictive judgments regarding the likely effects of court orders. Although these judgments are normally made by state officials, they necessarily must be made by courts when those courts fashion injunctive relief to remedy serious constitutional violations in the prisons. These questions are difficult and sensitive, but they are factual questions and should be treated as such. Courts can, and should, rely on relevant and informed expert testimony when making factual findings. It was proper for the three-judge court to rely on the testimony of prison officials from California and other States. Those experts testified on the basis of empirical evidence and extensive experience in the field of prison administration.

The three-judge court credited substantial evidence that prison populations can be reduced in a manner that does not increase crime to a significant degree. Some evidence indicated that reducing overcrowding in California’s prisons could even improve public safety. Then-Governor Schwarzenegger, in his emergency proclamation on overcrowding, acknowledged that “‘overcrowding causes harm to people and property, leads to inmate unrest and misconduct, . . . and increases recidivism as shown within this state and in others.’” Juris. App. 191a-192a. The former warden of San Quentin and acting secretary of the California prison system testified that she “‘absolutely believe[s] that we make people worse, and that we are not meeting public safety by the way we treat people.’ ”10 Id., at 129a. And the head of *536Pennsylvania’s correctional system testified that measures to reduce prison population may “actually improve on public safety because they address the problems that brought people to jail.” Tr. 1552-1553.

Expert witnesses produced statistical evidence that prison populations had been lowered without adversely affecting public safety in a number of jurisdictions, including certain counties in California, as well as Wisconsin, Illinois, Texas, Colorado, Montana, Michigan, Florida, and Canada. Juris. App. 245a.11 Washington’s former secretary of corrections testified that his State had implemented population-reduction methods, including parole reform and expansion of good-time credits, without any “deleterious effect on crime.” Tr. 2008-2009. In light of this evidence, the three-judge court concluded that any negative impact on public safety *537would be “substantially offset, and perhaps entirely eliminated, by the public safety benefits” of a reduction in overcrowding. Juris. App. 248a.

The court found that various available methods of reducing overcrowding would have little or no impact on public safety. Expansion of good-time credits would allow the State to give early release to only those prisoners who pose the least risk of reoffending. Diverting low-risk offenders to community programs such as drug treatment, day reporting centers, and electronic monitoring would likewise lower the prison population without releasing violent convicts.12 The State now sends large numbers of persons to prison for violating a technical term or condition of their parole, and it could reduce the prison population by punishing technical parole violations through community-based programs. This last measure would be particularly beneficial as it would reduce crowding in the reception centers, which are especially hard hit by overcrowding. See supra, at 521. The court’s order took account of public safety concerns by giving the State substantial flexibility to select among these and other means of reducing overcrowding.

The State submitted a plan to reduce its prison population in accordance with the three-judge court’s order, and it complains that the three-judge court approved that plan without considering whether the specific measures contained within it would substantially threaten public safety. The three-judge court, however, left the choice of how best to comply with its population limit to state prison officials. The court *538was not required to second-guess the exercise of that discretion. Courts should presume that state officials are in a better position to gauge how best to preserve public safety and balance competing correctional and law enforcement concerns. The decision to leave details of implementation to the State’s discretion protected public safety by leaving sensitive policy decisions to responsible and competent state officials.

During the pendency of this appeal, the State in fact began to implement measures to reduce the prison population. See Supp. Brief for Appellants 1. These measures will shift “thousands” of prisoners from the state prisons to the county jails by “mak[ing] certain felonies punishable by imprisonment in county jail” and “requiring] that individuals returned to custody for violating their conditions of parole ‘serve any custody term in county jail.’” Ibid. These developments support the three-judge court's conclusion that the prison population can be reduced in a manner calculated to avoid an undue negative effect on public safety.

Ill

Establishing the population at which the State could begin to provide constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care, and the appropriate timeframe within which to achieve the necessary reduction, requires a degree of judgment. The inquiry involves uncertain predictions regarding the effects of population reductions, as well as difficult determinations regarding the capacity of prison officials to provide adequate care at various population levels. Courts have substantial flexibility when making these judgments. “ ‘Once invoked, “the scope of a district court’s equitable powers ... is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies.” ’ ” Hutto, 437 U. S., at 687, n. 9 (quoting Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267, 281 (1977), in turn quoting Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U. S. 1, 15 (1971)).

*539Nevertheless, the PLEA requires a court to adopt a remedy that is “narrowly tailored” to the constitutional violation and that gives “substantial weight” to public safety. 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a). When a court is imposing a population limit, this means the court must set the limit at the highest population consistent with an efficacious remedy. The court must also order the population reduction achieved in the shortest period of time reasonably consistent with public safety.

A

The three-judge court concluded that the population of California’s prisons should be capped at 137.5% of design capacity. This conclusion is supported by the record. Indeed, some evidence supported a limit as low as 100% of design capacity. The chief deputy secretary of Correctional Healthcare Services for the California prisons testified that California’s prisons “ ‘were not designed and made no provision for any expansion of medical care space beyond the initial 100% of capacity.’” Juris. App. 176a. Other evidence supported a limit as low as 130%. The head of the State’s Facilities Strike Team recommended reducing the population to 130% of design capacity as a long-term goal. Id., at 179a-180a. A former head of correctional systems in Washington State, Maine, and Pennsylvania testified that a 130% limit would “ ‘give prison officials and staff the ability to provide the necessary programs and services for California’s prisoners.’” Id., at 180a. A former executive director of the Texas prisons testified that a limit of 130% was “ ‘realistic and appropriate’” and would “‘ensure that [California’s] prisons are safe and provide legally required services.’ ” Ibid. And a former acting secretary of the California prisons agreed with a 130% limit with the caveat that a 130% limit might prove inadequate in some older facilities. Ibid.

According to the State, this testimony expressed the witnesses’ policy preferences, rather than their views as to what would cure the constitutional violation. Of course, courts *540must not confuse professional standards with constitutional requirements. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U. S. 337, 348, n. 13 (1981). But expert opinion may be relevant when determining what is obtainable and what is acceptable in corrections philosophy. See supra, at 536-537. Nothing in the record indicates that the experts in this case imposed their own policy views or lost sight of the underlying violations. To the contrary, the witnesses testified that a 130% population limit would allow the State to remedy the constitutionally inadequate provision of medical and mental health care. When expert opinion is addressed to the question of how to remedy the relevant constitutional violations, as it was here, federal judges can give it considerable weight.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has set 130% as a long-term goal for population levels in the federal prison system. Brief for Appellants 43-44. The State suggests the expert witnesses impermissibly adopted this professional standard in their testimony. But courts are not required to disregard expert opinion solely because it adopts or accords with professional standards. Professional standards may be “helpful and relevant with respect to some questions.” Chapman, supra, at 348, n. 13. The witnesses testified that a limit of 130% was necessary to remedy the constitutional violations, not that it should be adopted because it is a BOP standard. If anything, the fact that the BOP views 130% as a manageable population density bolsters the three-judge court’s conclusion that a population limit of 130% would alleviate the pressures associated with overcrowding and allow the State to begin to provide constitutionally adequate care.

Although the three-judge court concluded that the “evidence in support of a 130% limit is strong,” it found that some upward adjustment was warranted in light of “the caution and restraint required by the PLRA.” Juris. App. 183a, 184a. The three-judge court noted evidence supporting a higher limit. In particular, the State’s Corrections Independent Review Panel had found that 145% was the maxi*541mum “operable capacity” of California’s prisons, id., at 181a-182a, although the relevance of that determination was undermined by the fact that the panel had not considered the need to provide constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care, as the State itself concedes. Brief for Coleman Appellees 45. After considering, but discounting, this evidence, the three-judge court concluded that the evidence supported a limit lower than 145%, but higher than 130%. It therefore imposed a limit of 137.5%.

This weighing of the evidence was not clearly erroneous. The adversary system afforded the court an opportunity to weigh and evaluate evidence presented by the parties. The plaintiffs’ evidentiary showing was intended to justify a limit of 130%, and the State made no attempt to show that any other number would allow for a remedy. There are also no scientific tools available to determine the precise population reduction necessary to remedy a constitutional violation of this sort. The three-judge court made the most precise determination it could in light of the record before it. The PLRA’s narrow tailoring requirement is satisfied so long as these equitable, remedial judgments are made with the objective of releasing the fewest possible prisoners consistent with an efficacious remedy. In light of substantial evidence supporting an even more drastic remedy, the three-judge court complied with the requirement of the PLRA in this case.

B

The three-judge court ordered the State to achieve this reduction within two years. At trial and closing argument before the three-judge court, the State did not argue that reductions should occur over a longer period of time. The State later submitted a plan for court approval that would achieve the required reduction within five years, and that would reduce the prison population to 151% of design capacity in two years. The State represented that this plan would “safely reach a population level of 137.5% over time.” *542Juris. App. 317a. The three-judge court rejected this plan because it did not comply with the deadline set by its order.

The State first had notice that it would be required to reduce its prison population in February 2009, when the three-judge court gave notice of its tentative ruling after trial. The 2-year deadline, however, will not begin to run until this Court issues its judgment. When that happens, the State will have already had over two years to begin complying with the order of the three-judge court. The State has used the time productively. At oral argument, the State indicated it had reduced its prison population by approximately 9,000 persons since the decision of the three-judge court. After oral argument, the State filed a supplemental brief indicating that it had begun to implement measures to shift “thousands” of additional prisoners to county facilities. Supp. Brief for Appellants 1.

Particularly in light of the State’s failure to contest the issue at trial, the three-judge court did not err when it established a 2-year deadline for relief. Plaintiffs proposed a 2-year deadline, and the evidence at trial was intended to demonstrate the feasibility of a 2-year deadline. See Tr. 2979. Notably, the State has not asked this Court to extend the 2-year deadline at this time.

The three-judge court, however, retains the authority, and the responsibility, to make further amendments to the existing order or any modified decree it may enter as warranted by the exercise of its sound discretion. “The power of a court of equity to modify a decree of injunctive relief is long-established, broad, and flexible.” New York State Assn. for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 706 F. 2d 956, 967 (CA2 1983) (Friendly, J.). A court that invokes equity’s power to remedy a constitutional violation by an injunction mandating systemic changes to an institution has the continuing duty and responsibility to assess the efficacy and consequences of its order. Id., at 969-971. Experience may teach the necessity for modification or amendment of an earlier decree. *543To that end, the three-judge court must remain open to a showing or demonstration by either party that the injunction should be altered to ensure that the rights and interests of the parties are given all due and necessary protection.

Proper respect for the State and for its governmental processes requires that the three-judge court exercise its jurisdiction to accord the State considerable latitude to find mechanisms and make plans to correct the violations in a prompt and effective way consistent with public safety. In order to “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety,” 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(1)(A), the three-judge court must give due deference to informed opinions as to what public safety requires, including the considered determinations of state officials regarding the time in which a reduction in the prison population can be achieved consistent with public safety. An extension of time may allow the State to consider changing political, economic, and other circumstances and to take advantage of opportunities for more effective remedies that arise as the Special Master, the Receiver, the prison system, and the three-judge court itself evaluate the progress being made to correct unconstitutional conditions. At the same time, both the three-judge court and state officials must bear in mind the need for a timely and efficacious remedy for the ongoing violation of prisoners’ constitutional rights.

The State may wish to move for modification of the three-judge court’s order to extend the deadline for the required reduction to five years from the entry of the judgment of this Court, the deadline proposed in the State’s first population-reduction plan. The three-judge court may grant such a request provided that the State satisfies necessary and appropriate preconditions designed to ensure that measures are taken to implement the plan without undue delay. Appropriate preconditions may include a requirement that the State demonstrate that it has the authority and the resources necessary to achieve the required reduction within *544a 5-year period and to meet reasonable interim directives for population reduction. The three-judge court may also condition an extension of time on the State’s ability to meet interim benchmarks for improvement in provision of medical and mental health care.

The three-judge court, in its discretion, may also consider whether it is appropriate to order the State to begin without delay to develop a system to identify prisoners who are unlikely to reoffend or who might otherwise be candidates for early release. Even with an extension of time to construct new facilities and implement other reforms, it may become necessary to release prisoners to comply with the court’s order. To do so safely, the State should devise systems to select those prisoners least likely to jeopardize public safety. An extension of time may provide the State a greater opportunity to refine and elaborate those systems.

The State has already made significant progress toward reducing its prison population, including reforms that will result in shifting “thousands” of prisoners to county jails. See Supp. Brief for Appellants 1. As the State makes further progress, the three-judge court should evaluate whether its order remains appropriate. If significant progress is made toward remedying the underlying constitutional violations, that progress may demonstrate that further population reductions are not necessary or are less urgent than previously believed. Were the State to make this showing, the three-judge court in the exercise of its discretion could consider whether it is appropriate to extend or modify this timeline.

Experience with the three-judge court’s order may also lead the State to suggest other modifications. The three-judge court should give any such requests serious consideration. The three-judge court should also formulate its orders to allow the State and its officials the authority necessary to address contingencies that may arise during the remedial process.

*545These observations reflect the fact that the three-judge court’s order, like all continuing equitable decrees, must remain open to appropriate modification. They are not intended to cast doubt on the validity of the basic premise of the existing order. The medical and mental health care provided by California’s prisons falls below the standard of decency that inheres in the Eighth Amendment. This extensive and ongoing constitutional violation requires a remedy, and a remedy will not be achieved without a reduction in overcrowding. The relief ordered by the three-judge court is required by the Constitution and was authorized by Congress in the PLRA. The State shall implement the order without further delay.

The judgment of the three-judge court is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

APPENDIXES

A

18 U. S. C. §8626:

“(a) Requirements for Relief.—

“(1) Prospective relief. — (A) Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.

“(3) Prisoner release order. — (A) In any civil action with respect to prison conditions, no court shall enter a prisoner release order unless—

*546“(i) a court has previously entered an order for less intrusive relief that has failed to remedy the deprivation of the Federal right sought to be remedied through the prisoner release order; and

“(ii) the defendant has had a reasonable amount of time to comply with the previous court orders.

“(B) In any civil action in Federal court with respect to prison conditions, a prisoner release order shall be entered only by a three-judge court in accordance with section 2284 of title 28, if the requirements of subparagraph (E) have been met.

“(C) A party seeking a prisoner release order in Federal court shall file with any request for such relief, a request for a three-judge court and materials sufficient to demonstrate that the requirements of subparagraph (A) have been met.

“(D) If the requirements under subparagraph (A) have been met, a Federal judge before whom a civil action with respect to prison conditions is pending who believes that a prison release order should be considered may sua sponte request the convening of a three-judge court to determine whether a prisoner release order should be entered.

“(E) The three-judge court shall enter a prisoner release order only if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that—

“(i) crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right; and

“(ii) no other relief will remedy the violation of the Federal right.

“(F) Any State or local official including a legislator or unit of government whose jurisdiction or function includes the appropriation of funds for the construction, operation, or maintenance of prison facilities, or the prosecution or custody of persons who may be released from, or not admitted to, a prison as a result of a prisoner release order shall have standing to oppose the imposition or continuation in effect of such relief and to seek termination of such relief, and shall *547have the right to intervene in any proceeding relating to such relief.

“(g) Definitions. — As used in this section—

“(4) the term ‘prisoner release order’ includes any order, including a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunctive relief, that has the purpose or effect of reducing or limiting the prison population, or that directs the release from or nonadmission of prisoners to a prison ....”

[Appendix B is on p. 548.]

*548

*549

*550

*551

*550Justice Scalia,

with whom Justice Thomas joins, dissenting.

Today the Court affirms what is perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our Nation’s history: an order requiring California to release the staggering number of 46,000 convicted criminals.

There comes before us, now and then, a case whose proper outcome is so clearly indicated by tradition and common sense, that its decision ought to shape the law, rather than viee versa. One would think that, before allowing the decree of a federal district court to release 46,000 convicted felons, this Court would bend every effort to read the law in such a way as to avoid that outrageous result. Today, quite to the contrary, the Court disregards stringently drawn provisions of the governing statute, and traditional constitutional limitations upon the power of a federal judge, in order to uphold the absurd.

The proceedings that led to this result were a judicial travesty. I dissent because the institutional reform the District Court has undertaken violates the terms of the governing statute, ignores bedrock limitations on the power of Article III judges, and takes federal courts wildly beyond their institutional capacity.

I

A

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) states that “[prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs”; that such relief must be “narrowly drawn, [and] exten[d] no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right”; and that it must be "the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). In deciding whether these multiple limitations have been complied with, *551it is necessary to identify with precision what is the “violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs” that has been alleged. What has been alleged here, and what the injunction issued by the court is tailored (narrowly or not) to remedy, is the running of a prison system with inadequate medical facilities. That may result in the denial of needed medical treatment to “a particular [prisoner] or [prisoners],” thereby violating (according to our cases) his or their Eighth Amendment rights. But the mere existence of the inadequate system does not subject to cruel and unusual punishment the entire prison population in need of medical care, including those who receive it.

The Court acknowledges that the plaintiffs “do not base their case on deficiencies in care provided on any one occasion”; rather, “[p]laintiffs rely on systemwide deficiencies in the provision of medical and mental health care that, taken as a whole, subject sick and mentally ill prisoners in California to ‘substantial risk of serious harm’ and cause the delivery of care in the prisons to fall below the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Ante, at 505, n. 3. But our judge-empowering “evolving standards of decency” jurisprudence (with which, by the way, I heartily disagree, see, e. g., Roper v. Simmons, 543 U. S. 551, 615-616 (2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting)) does not prescribe (or at least has not until today prescribed) rules for the “decent” running of schools, prisons, and other government institutions. It forbids “indecent” treatment of individuals — in the context of this case, the denial of medical care to those who need it. And the persons who have a constitutional claim for denial of medical care are those who are denied medical care — not all who face a “substantial risk” (whatever that is) of being denied medical care.

The Coleman litigation involves “the class of seriously mentally ill persons in California prisons,” ante, at 506, and the Plata litigation involves “the class of state prisoners with serious medical conditions,” ante, at 507. The plaintiffs *552do not appear to claim — and it would be absurd to suggest— that every single one of those prisoners has personally experienced “torture or a lingering death,” ante, at 510 (internal quotation marks omitted), as a consequence of that bad medical system. Indeed, it is inconceivable that anything more than a small proportion of prisoners in the plaintiff classes have personally received sufficiently atrocious treatment that their Eighth Amendment right was violated — which, as the Court recognizes, is why the plaintiffs do not premise their claim on “deficiencies in care provided on any one occasion.” Ante, at 505, n. 3. Rather, the plaintiffs’ claim is that they are all part of a medical system so defective that some number of prisoners will inevitably be injured by incompetent medical care, and that this number is sufficiently high so as to render the system, as a whole, unconstitutional.

But what procedural principle justifies certifying a class of plaintiffs so they may assert a claim of systemic unconstitutionality? I can think of two possibilities, both of which are untenable. The first is that although some or most plaintiffs in the class do not individually have viable Eighth Amendment claims, the class as a whole has collectively suffered an Eighth Amendment violation. That theory is contrary to the bedrock rule that the sole purpose of classwide adjudication is to aggregate claims that are individually viabla “A class action, no less than traditional joinder (of which it is a species), merely enables a federal court to adjudicate claims of multiple parties at once, instead of in separate suits. And like traditional joinder, it leaves the parties’ legal rights and duties intact and the rules of decision unchanged.” Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P. A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U. S. 393, 408 (2010) (plurality opinion).

The second possibility is that every member of the plaintiff class has suffered an Eighth Amendment violation merely by virtue of being a patient in a poorly-run prison system, and the purpose of the class is merely to aggregate all those individually viable claims. This theory has the virtue of *553being consistent with procedural principles, but at the cost of a gross substantive departure from our case law. Under this theory, each and every prisoner who happens to be a patient in a system that has systemic weaknesses — such as “hir[ing] any doctor who had a license, a pulse and a pair of shoes,” ante, at 508 (internal quotation marks omitted) — has suffered cruel or unusual punishment, even if that person cannot make an individualized showing of mistreatment. Such a theory of the Eighth Amendment is preposterous. And we have said as much in the past: “If ... a healthy inmate who had suffered no deprivation of needed medical treatment were able to claim violation of his constitutional right to medical care ... simply on the ground that the prison medical facilities were inadequate, the essential distinction between judge and executive would have disappeared: it would have become the function of the courts to assure adequate medical care in prisons.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U. S. 343, 350 (1996).

Whether procedurally wrong or substantively wrong, the notion that the plaintiff class can allege an Eighth Amendment violation based on “systemwide deficiencies” is assuredly wrong. It follows that the remedy decreed here is also contrary to law, since the theory of systemic unconstitutionality is central to the plaintiffs’ case. The PLRA requires plaintiffs to establish that the systemwide injunction entered by the District Court was “narrowly drawn” and “extends no further than necessary” to correct “the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs.” If (as is the case) the only viable constitutional claims consist of individual instances of mistreatment, then a remedy reforming the system as a whole goes far beyond what the statute allows.

It is also worth noting the peculiarity that the vast majority of inmates most generously rewarded by the release order — the 46,000 whose incarceration will be ended — do not form part of any aggrieved class even under the Court’s ex*554pansive notion of constitutional violation. Most of them will not be prisoners with medical conditions or severe mental illness; and many will undoubtedly be fine physical specimens who have developed intimidating muscles pumping iron in the prison gym.

B

Even if I accepted the implausible premise that the plaintiffs have established a systemwide violation of the Eighth Amendment, I would dissent from the Court’s endorsement of a decrowding order. That order is an example of what has become known as a “structural injunction.” As'I have previously explained, structural injunctions are radically different from the injunctions traditionally issued by courts of equity, and presumably part of the “judicial Power” conferred on federal courts by Article III:

“The mandatory injunctions issued upon termination of litigation usually required ‘a single simple act.’ H. Mc-Clintock, Principles of Equity §15, pp. 82-33 (2d ed. 1948). Indeed, there was a ‘historical prejudice of the court of chancery against rendering decrees which called for more than a single affirmative act.’ Id., §61, at 160. And where specific performance of contracts was sought, it was the categorical rule that no decree would issue that required ongoing supervision.... Compliance with these ‘single act’ mandates could, in addition to being simple, be quick; and once it was achieved the contemnor’s relationship with the court came to an end, at least insofar as the subject of the order was concerned. Once the document was turned over or the land conveyed, the litigant’s obligation to the court, and the court’s coercive power over the litigant, ceased. . . . The court did not engage in any ongoing supervision of the litigant’s conduct, nor did its order continue to regulate his behavior.” Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U. S. 821, 841-842 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring).

*555Structural injunctions depart from that historical practice, turning judges into long-term administrators of complex social institutions such as schools, prisons, and police departments. Indeed, they require judges to play a role essentially indistinguishable from the role ordinarily played by executive officials. Today’s decision not only affirms the structural injunction but vastly expands its use, by holding that an entire system is unconstitutional because it may produce constitutional violations.

The drawbacks of structural injunctions have been described at great length elsewhere. See, e. g., Lewis, supra, at 385-393 (Thomas, J., concurring); Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U. S. 70, 124-133 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring); Horowitz, Decreeing Organizational Change: Judicial Supervision of Public Institutions, 1983 Duke L. J. 1265. This case illustrates one of their most pernicious aspects: that they force judges to engage in a form of factfinding-as-policymaking that is outside the traditional judicial role. The factfinding judges traditionally engage in involves the determination of past or present facts based (except for a limited set of materials of which courts may take “judicial notice”) exclusively upon a closed trial record. That is one reason why a district judge’s factual findings are entitled to clear-error review: because having viewed the trial first hand he is in a better position to evaluate the evidence than a judge reviewing a cold record. In a very limited category of cases, judges have also traditionally been called upon to make some predictive judgments: which custody will best serve the interests of the child, for example, or whether a particular one-shot injunction will remedy the plaintiff’s grievance. When a judge manages a structural injunction, however, he will inevitably be required to make very broad empirical predictions necessarily based in large part upon policy views — the sort of predictions regularly made by legislators and executive officials, but inappropriate for the Third Branch.

*556This feature of structural injunctions is superbly illustrated by the District Court’s proceeding concerning the deerowding order’s effect on public safety. The PLRA requires that, before granting “[prospective relief in [a] civil action with respect to prison conditions,” a court must “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.” 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Here, the District Court discharged that requirement by making the “factual finding” that “the state has available methods by which it could readily reduce the prison population to 137.5% design capacity or less without an adverse impact on public safety or the operation of the criminal justice system.” App. to Juris. Statement, O. T. 2009, No. 09-416, p. 253a. It found the evidence “clear” that prison overcrowding would “perpetuate a criminogenic prison system that itself threatens public safety,” id., at 186a, and volunteered its opinion that “[t]he population could be reduced even further with the reform of California’s antiquated sentencing policies and other related changes to the laws.” Id., at 253a. It “rejected] the testimony that inmates released early from prison would commit additional new crimes,” id., at 200a, finding that “shortening the length of stay through earned credits would give inmates incentives to participate in programming designed to lower recidivism,” id., at 204a, and that “slowing the flow of technical parole violators to prison, thereby substantially reducing the churning of parolees, would by itself improve both the prison and parole systems, and public safety,” id., at 209a. It found that “the diversion of offenders to community correctional programs has significant beneficial effects on public safety,” id., at 214a, and that “additional rehabilitative programming would result in a significant population reduction while improving public safety,” id., at 216a.

The District Court cast these predictions (and the Court today accepts them) as “factual findings,” made in reliance on the procession of expert witnesses who testified at trial. *557Because these “findings” have support in the record, it is difficult to reverse them under a plain-error standard of review. Ante, at 535. And given that the District Court devoted nearly 10 days of trial and 70 pages of its opinion to this issue, it is difficult to dispute that the District Court has discharged its statutory obligation to give “substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety.”

But the idea that the three District Judges in this case relied solely on the credibility of the testifying expert witnesses is fanciful. Of course they were relying largely on their own beliefs about penology and recidivism. And of course different district judges, of different policy views, would have “found” that rehabilitation would not work and that releasing prisoners would increase the crime rate. I am not saying that the District Judges rendered their factual findings in bad faith. I am saying that it is impossible for judges to make “factual findings” without inserting their own policy judgments, when the factual findings are policy judgments. What occurred here is no more judicial fact-finding in the ordinary sense than would be the factual findings that deficit spending will not lower the unemployment rate, or that the continued occupation of Iraq will decrease the risk of terrorism. Yet, because they have been branded “factual findings” entitled to deferential review, the policy preferences of three District Judges now govern the operation of California's penal system.

It is important to recognize that the dressing-up of policy judgments as factual findings is not an error peculiar to this case. It is an unavoidable concomitant of institutional-reform litigation. When a district court issues an injunction, it must make a factual assessment of the anticipated consequences of the injunction. And when the injunction undertakes to restructure a social institution, assessing the factual consequences of the injunction is necessarily the sort of predictive judgment that our system of government allocates to other government officials.

*558But structural injunctions do not simply invite judges to indulge policy preferences. They invite judges to indulge incompetent policy preferences. Three years of law school and familiarity with pertinent Supreme Court precedents give no insight whatsoever into the management of social institutions. Thus, in the proceeding below the District Court determined that constitutionally adequate medical services could be provided if the prison population was 137.5% of design capacity. This was an empirical finding it was utterly unqualified to make. Admittedly, the court did not generate that number entirely on its own; it heard the numbers 130% and 145% bandied about by various witnesses and decided to split the difference. But the ability of judges to spit back or even average out numbers spoon fed to them by expert witnesses does not render them competent decisionmakers in areas in which they are otherwise unqualified.

The District Court also relied heavily on the views of the Receiver and Special Master, and those reports play a starring role in the Court's opinion today. The Court notes that “the Receiver and the Special Master filed reports stating that overcrowding posed a significant barrier to their efforts” and deems those reports “persuasive evidence that, absent a reduction in overcrowding, any remedy might prove unattainable and would at the very least require vast expenditures of resources by the State.” Ante, at 529. The use of these reports is even less consonant with the traditional judicial role than the District Court's reliance on the expert testimony at trial. The latter, even when, as here, it is largely the expression of policy judgments, is at least subject to cross-examination. Relying on the un-crossexamined findings of an investigator, sent into the field to prepare a factual report and give suggestions on how to improve the prison system, bears no resemblance to ordinary judicial decisionmaking. It is true that the PLRA contemplates the appointment of special masters (although not receivers), but special masters are authorized only to “conduct *559hearings and prepare proposed findings of fact” and “assist in the development of remedial plans,” 18 U. S. C. § 3626(f)(6). This does not authorize them to make factual findings (unconnected to hearings) that are given seemingly wholesale deference. Neither the Receiver nor the Special Master was selected by California to run its prisons, and the fact that they may be experts in the field of prison reform does not justify the judicial imposition of their perspectives on the State.

C

My general concerns associated with judges’ running social institutions are magnified when they run prison systems, and doubly magnified when they force prison officials to release convicted criminals. As we have previously recognized:

“[Cjourts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform. . . . [Tjhe problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable, and, more to the point, they are not readily susceptible of resolution by decree. . .. Running a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government. Prison administration is, moreover, a task that has been committed to the responsibility of those branches, and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint. Where a state penal system is involved, federal courts have .. . additional reason to accord deference to the appropriate prison authorities.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, 84-85 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted).

These principles apply doubly to a prisoner-release order. As the author of today’s opinion explained earlier this Term, granting a writ of habeas corpus “ ‘disturbs the State’s sig*560nificant interest in repose for concluded litigation, denies society the right to punish some admitted offenders, and intrudes on state sovereignty to a degree matched by few exercises of federal judicial authority.’” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U. S. 86, 103 (2011) (quoting Harris v. Reed, 489 U. S. 255, 282 (1989) (Kennedy, J., dissenting)). Recognizing that habeas relief must be granted sparingly, we have reversed the Ninth Circuit's erroneous grant of habeas relief to individual California prisoners four times this Term alone. Cullen v. Pinholster, ante, p. 170; Felkner v. Jackson, 562 U. S. 594 (2011) (per curiam); Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U. S. 216 (2011) (per curiam); Harrington, supra. And yet here, the Court affirms an order granting the fimctional equivalent of 46,000 writs of habeas corpus, based on its paean to courts’ “substantial flexibility when making these judgments.” Ante, at 538. It seems that the Court’s respect for state sovereignty has vanished in the case where it most matters.

II

The Court’s opinion includes a bizarre coda noting that “[t]he State may wish to move for modification of the three-judge court’s order to extend the deadline for the required reduction to five years.” Ante, at 543. The District Court, it says, “may grant such a request provided that the State satisfies necessary and appropriate preconditions designed to ensure that measures are taken to implement the plan without undue delay”; and it gives vague suggestions of what these preconditions “may include,” such as “interim benchmarks.” Ante, at 543-544. It also invites the District Court to “consider whether it is appropriate to order the State to begin without delay to develop a system to identify prisoners who are unlikely to reoffend,” and informs the State that it “should devise systems to select those prisoners least likely to jeopardize public safety.” Ante, at 544. (What a good idea!)

*561The legal effect of this passage is unclear — I suspect intentionally so. If it is nothing but a polite reminder to the State and to the District Court that the injunction is subject to modification, then it is entirely unnecessary. As both the State and the District Court are undoubtedly aware, a party is always entitled to move to modify an equitable decree, and the PLRA contains an express provision authorizing District Courts to modify or terminate prison injunctions. See 18 U.S. C. § 3626(b).

I suspect, however, that this passage is a warning shot across the bow, telling the District Court that it had better modify the injunction if the State requests what we invite it to request. Such a warning, if successful, would achieve the benefit of a marginal reduction in the inevitable murders, robberies, and rapes to be committed by the released inmates. But it would achieve that at the expense of intellectual bankruptcy, as the Court’s “warning” is entirely alien to ordinary principles of appellate review of injunctions. When a party moves for modification of an injunction, the district court is entitled to rule on that motion first, subject to review for abuse of discretion if it declines to modify the order. Horne v. Flores, 557 U. S. 433, 447, 456 (2009). Moreover, when a district court enters a new decree with new benchmarks, the selection of those benchmarks is also reviewed under a deferential, abuse-of-diseretion standard of review — a point the Court appears to recognize. Ante, at 542. Appellate courts are not supposed to “affirm” injunctions while preemptively noting that the State “may” request, and the District Court “may” grant, a request to extend the State’s deadline to release prisoners by three years based on some suggestions on what appropriate preconditions for such a modification “may” include.

Of course what is really happening here is that the Court, overcome by common sense, disapproves of the results reached by the District Court, but cannot remedy them (it *562thinks) by applying ordinary standards of appellate review. It has therefore selected a solution unknown in our legal system: A deliberately ambiguous set of suggestions on how to modify the injunction, just deferential enough so that it can say with a straight face that it is “affirming,” just stern enough to put the District Court on notice that it will likely get reversed if it does not follow them. In doing this, the Court has aggrandized itself, grasping authority that appellate courts are not supposed to have, and using it to enact a compromise solution with no legal basis other than the Court’s say-so. That we are driven to engage in these extralegal activities should be a sign that the entire project of permitting district courts to run prison systems is misbegotten.

But perhaps I am being too unkind. The Court, or at least a majority of the Court’s majority, must be aware that the judges of the District Court are likely to call its bluff, since they know full well it cannot possibly be an abuse of discretion to refuse to accept the State’s proposed modifications in an injunction that has just been approved (affirmed) in its present form. An injunction, after all, does not have to be perfect; only good enough for government work, which the Court today says this is. So perhaps the coda is nothing more than a ceremonial washing of the hands — making it clear for all to see, that if the terrible things sure to happen as a consequence of this outrageous order do happen, they will be none of this Court’s responsibility. After all, did we not want, and indeed even suggest, something better?

Ill

In view of the incoherence of the Eighth Amendment claim at the core of this case, the nonjudicial features of institutional-reform litigation that this case exemplifies, and the unique concerns associated with mass prisoner releases, I do not believe this Court can affirm this injunction. I will *563state my approach briefly: In my view, a court may not order a prisoner's release unless it determines that the prisoner is suffering from a violation of his constitutional rights, and that his release, and no other relief, will remedy that violation. Thus, if the court determines that a particular prisoner is being denied constitutionally required medical treatment, and the release of that prisoner (and no other remedy) would enable him to obtain medical treatment, then the court can order his release; but a court may not order the release of prisoners who have suffered no violations of their constitutional rights, merely to make it less likely that that will happen to them in the future.

This view follows from the PLRA’s text that I discussed at the outset, 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). “[N]arrowly drawn” means that the relief applies only to the “particular [prisoner] or [prisoners]” whose constitutional rights are violated; “extends no further than necessary” means that prisoners whose rights are not violated will not obtain relief; and “least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right” means that no other relief is available.*

I acknowledge that this reading of the PLRA would severely limit the circumstances under which a court could issue structural injunctions to remedy allegedly unconstitutional prison conditions, although it would not eliminate them entirely. If, for instance, a class representing all prisoners in a particular institution alleged that the temperature in their cells was so cold as to violate the Eighth Amendment, or that they were deprived of all exercise time, a court could enter a prisonwide injunction ordering that the tem*564perature be raised or exercise time be provided. Still, my approach may invite the objection that the PLRA appears to contemplate structural injunctions in general and mass prisoner-release orders in particular. The statute requires courts to “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief” and authorizes them to appoint special masters, § 3626 (a)(1)(A), (f), provisions that seem to presuppose the possibility of a structural remedy. It also sets forth criteria under which courts may issue orders that have “the purpose or effect of reducing or limiting the prison population,” § 3626(g)(4).

I do not believe that objection carries the day. In addition to imposing numerous limitations on the ability of district courts to order injunctive relief with respect to prison conditions, the PLRA states that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to . . . repeal or detract from otherwise applicable limitations on the remedial powers of the courts.” § 3626(a)(1)(C). The PLRA is therefore best understood as an attempt to constrain the discretion of courts issuing structural injunctions — not as a mandate for their use. For the reasons I have outlined, structural injunctions, especially prisoner-release orders, raise grave separation-of-powers concerns and veer significantly from the historical role and institutional capability of courts. It is appropriate to construe the PLRA so as to constrain courts from entering injunctive relief that would exceed that role and capability.

* * *

The District Court’s order that California release 46,000 prisoners extends “further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs” who have been denied needed medical care. 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). It is accordingly forbidden by the PLRA— besides defying all sound conception of the proper role of judges.

*565Justice Alito,

with whom The Chief Justice joins, dissenting.

The decree in this case is a perfect example of what the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 110 Stat. 1321-66, was enacted to prevent.

The Constitution does not give federal judges the authority to run state penal systems. Decisions regarding state prisons have profound public safety and financial implications, and the States are generally free to make these decisions as they choose. See Turner v. Safiey, 482 U. S. 78, 85 (1987).

The Eighth Amendment imposes an important — but limited — restraint on state authority in this field. The Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials from depriving inmates of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U. S. 337, 347 (1981). Federal courts have the responsibility to ensure that this constitutional standard is met, but undesirable prison conditions that do not violate the Constitution are beyond the federal courts’ reach.

In this case, a three-judge court exceeded its authority under the Constitution and the PLRA. The court ordered a radical reduction in the California prison population without finding that the current population level violates the Constitution.

Two cases were before the three-judge court, and neither targeted the general problem of overcrowding. Indeed, the plaintiffs in one of those cases readily acknowledge that the current population level is not itself unconstitutional. Brief for Coleman Appellees 56. Both of the cases were brought not on behalf of all inmates subjected to overcrowding, but rather in the interests of much more limited classes of prisoners, namely, those needing mental health treatment and those with other serious medical needs. But these cases were used as a springboard to implement a criminal justice program far different from that chosen by the state legisla*566ture. Instead of crafting a remedy to attack the specific constitutional violations that were found — which related solely to prisoners in the two plaintiff classes — the lower court issued a decree that will at best provide only modest help to those prisoners but that is very likely to have a major and deleterious effect on public safety.

The three-judge court ordered the premature release of approximately J/,6,000 criminals — the equivalent of three Army divisions.

The approach taken by the three-judge court flies in the face of the PLRA. Contrary to the PLRA, the court’s remedy is not narrowly tailored to address proven and ongoing constitutional violations. And the three-judge court violated the PLRA’s critical command that any court contemplating a prisoner release order must give “substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety.” 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). The three-judge court would have us believe that the early release of 46,000 inmates will not imperil — and will actually improve — public safety. App. to Juris. Statement, O. T. 2009, No. 09-416, pp. 248a-249a (hereinafter Juris. App.). Common sense and experience counsel greater caution.

I would reverse the decision below for three interrelated reasons. First, the three-judge court improperly refused to consider evidence concerning present conditions in the California prison system. Second, the court erred in holding that no remedy short of a massive prisoner release can bring the California system into compliance with the Eighth Amendment. Third, the court gave inadequate weight to the impact of its decree on public safety.

I

Both the PLRA and general principles concerning injunctive relief dictate that a prisoner release order cannot properly be issued unless the relief is necessary to remedy an ongoing violation. Under the PLRA, a prisoner release may *567be decreed only if crowding “is the primary cause” of an Eighth Amendment violation and only if no other relief “will remedy” the violation. § 3626(a)(3)(E) (emphasis added). This language makes it clear that proof of past violations alone is insufficient to justify a court-ordered prisoner release.

Similarly, in cases not governed by the PLRA, we have held that an inmate seeking an injunction to prevent a violation of the Eighth Amendment must show that prison officials are “knowingly and unreasonably disregarding an objectively intolerable risk of harm, and that they will continue to do so ... into the future.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825, 846 (1994). The “deliberate indifference” needed to establish an Eighth Amendment violation must be examined “in light of the prison authorities’ current attitudes and conduct,” Helling v. McKinney, 509 U. S. 25, 36 (1993), which means “their attitudes and conduct at the time suit is brought and persisting thereafter,” Farmer, supra, at 845.

For these reasons, the propriety of the relief ordered here cannot be assessed without ascertaining the nature and scope of any ongoing constitutional violations. Proof of past violations will not do; nor is it sufficient simply to establish that some violations continue. The scope of permissible relief depends on the scope of any continuing violations, and therefore it was essential for the three-judge court to make a reliable determination of the extent of any violations as of the time its release order was issued. Particularly in light of the radical nature of its chosen remedy, nothing less than an up-to-date assessment was tolerable.

The three-judge court, however, relied heavily on outdated information and findings and refused to permit California to introduce new evidence. Despite evidence of improvement,1 *568the three-judge court relied on old findings made by the single-judge courts, see Juris. App. 76a-77a, including a finding made 14 years earlier, see id., at 170a (citing Coleman v. Wilson, 912 F. Supp. 1282, 1316, 1319 (ED Cal. 1995)). The three-judge court highlighted death statistics from 2005, see Juris. App. 9a, while ignoring the “significant and continuous decline since 2006,” California Prison Health Care Receivership Corp., K. Imai, Analysis of Year 2008 Death Reviews 31 (Dec. 2009) (hereinafter 2008 Death Reviews). And the court dwelled on conditions at a facility that has since been replaced. See Juris. App. 19a-20a, 24a, 89a-90a, 94a, 107a, 111a.

Prohibiting the State from introducing evidence about conditions as of the date when the prisoner release order was under consideration, id., at 76a-78a, and n. 42, the three-judge court explicitly stated that it would not “evaluate the state’s continuing constitutional violations,” id., at 77a. Instead, it based its remedy on constitutional deficiencies that, in its own words, were found “years ago.” Ibid.2

The three-judge court justified its refusal to receive up-to-date evidence on the ground that the State had not filed a motion to terminate prospective relief under a provision of the PLRA, § 3626(b). See Juris. App. 77a. Today’s opinion for this Court endorses that reasoning, ante, at 523-524. But the State’s opportunity to file such a motion did not eliminate the three-judge court’s obligation to ensure that its relief was necessary to remedy ongoing violations.3 More*569over, the lower court’s reasoning did not properly take into account the potential significance of the evidence that the State sought to introduce. Even if that evidence did not show that all violations had ceased — the showing needed to obtain the termination of relief under § 3626(b) — that evidence was highly relevant with respect to the nature and scope of permissible relief.4

The majority approves the three-judge court’s refusal to receive fresh evidence based largely on the need for “[orderly trial management.” Ibid. The majority reasons that the three-judge court had closed the book on the question of constitutional violations and had turned to the question of remedy. Ibid. As noted, however, the extent of any continuing constitutional violations was highly relevant to the question of remedy.

The majority also countenances the three-judge court’s reliance on dated findings. The majority notes that the lower court considered recent reports by the Special Master and ’Receiver, ante, at 516, but the majority provides no persuasive justification for the lower court’s refusal to receive hard, up-to-date evidence about any continuing violations. *570With the safety of the people of California in the balance, the record on this issue should not have been closed.

The majority repeats the lower court’s error of reciting statistics that are clearly out of date. The Court notes the lower court’s finding that as of 2005 “ ‘an inmate in one of California’s prisons needlessly dies every six to seven days.’ ” See ante, at 507. Yet by the date of the trial before the three-judge court, the death rate had been trending downward for 10 quarters, App. 2257, and the number of likely preventable deaths fell from 18 in 2006 to 3 in 2007, a decline of 83 percent.5 Between 2001 and 2007, the California prison system had the 13th lowest average mortality rate of all 50 state systems.6

The majority highlights past instances in which particular prisoners received shockingly deficient medical care. See ante, at 503-504, 504-505, 508 (recounting five incidents). But such anecdotal evidence cannot be given undue weight in assessing the current state of the California system. The population of the California prison system (156,000 inmates *571at the time of trial) is larger than that of many medium-sized cities,7 and an examination of the medical care provided to the residents of many such cities would likely reveal cases in which grossly deficient treatment was provided. Instances of past mistreatment in the California system are relevant, but prospective relief must be tailored to present and future, not past, conditions.

II

Under the PLRA, a court may not grant any prospective relief unless the court finds that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the “violation of [a] Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.” § 3626(a)(1)(A). In addition, the PLRA prohibits the issuance of a prisoner release order unless the court finds “by clear and convincing evidence that . . . crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right” and that “no other relief will remedy the violation of the Federal right.” § 3626(a)(3)(E).

These statutory restrictions largely reflect general stand- ’ ards for injunctive relief aimed at remedying constitutional violations by state and local governments. “The power of the federal courts to restructure the operation of local and state governmental entities is not plenary. ... Once a constitutional violation is found, a federal court is required to tailor the scope of the remedy to fit the nature and extent of the constitutional violation.” Dayton Bd. of Ed. v. Brinkman, 433 U. S. 406, 419-420 (1977) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the majority and the court below maintain that no remedy short of a massive release of prisoners from the general prison population can remedy the State’s failure to pro*572vide constitutionally adequate health care. This argument is implausible on its face and is not supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence.

It is instructive to consider the list of deficiencies in the California prison health care system that are highlighted in today’s opinion for this Court and in the opinion of the court below. The deficiencies noted by the majority here include the following: “ ‘[e]xam tables and counter tops, where prisoners with . .. communicable diseases are treated, [are] not routinely disinfected,’ ” ante, at 508; medical facilities “ ‘are in an abysmal state of disrepair,”' ibid.; medications "‘are too often not available when needed,’ ” ibid.; “ ‘[b]asie medical equipment is often not available or used,’ ” ibid.; prisons “would ‘hire any doctor who had “a license, a pulse and a pair of shoes,” ’ ” ibid.; and medical and mental health staff positions have high vacancy rates, ante, at 517. The three-judge court pointed to similar problems. See Juris. App. 93a-121a (citing, among other things, staffing vacancies, too few beds for mentally ill prisoners, and an outmoded records management system).

Is it plausible that none of these deficiencies can be remedied without releasing 46,000 prisoners? Without taking that radical and dangerous step, exam tables and counter-tops cannot properly be disinfected? None of the system’s dilapidated facilities can be repaired? Needed medications and equipment cannot be purchased and used? Staff vacancies cannot be filled? The qualifications of prison physicians cannot be improved? A better records management system cannot be developed and implemented?

I do not dispute that general overcrowding contributes to many of the California system’s health care problems. But it by no means follows that reducing overcrowding is the only or the best or even a particularly good way to alleviate those problems. Indeed, it is apparent that the prisoner release ordered by the court below is poorly suited for this purpose. The release order is not limited to prisoners need*573ing substantial medical care but instead calls for a reduction in the system’s overall population. Under the order issued by the court below, it is not necessary for a single prisoner in the plaintiff classes to be released. Although some class members will presumably be among those who are discharged, the decrease in the number of prisoners needing mental health treatment or other forms of extensive medical care will be much smaller than the total number of prisoners released, and thus the release will produce at best only a modest improvement in the burden on the medical care system.

The record bears this out. The Special Master stated dramatically that even releasing 100,000 inmates (two-thirds of the California system’s entire inmate population!) would leave the problem of providing mental health treatment “largely unmitigated.” App. 487. Similarly, the Receiver proclaimed that “ ‘those . . . who think that population controls will solve California’s prison health care problems . . . are simply wrong.’ ” Juris. App. 282a.

The State proposed several remedies other than a massive release of prisoners, but the three-judge court, seemingly intent on attacking the broader problem of general overcrowding, rejected all of the State’s proposals. In doing so, the court made three critical errors.

First, the court did not assess those proposals and other remedies in light of conditions proved to exist at the time the release order was framed. Had more recent evidence been taken into account, a less extreme remedy might have been shown to be sufficient.

Second, the court failed to distinguish between conditions that fall below the level that may be desirable as a matter of public policy and conditions that do not meet the minimum level mandated by the Constitution. To take one example, the court criticized the California system because prison doctors must conduct intake exams in areas separated by folding screens rather than in separate rooms, creating conditions *574that “do not allow for appropriate confidentiality.” Id., at 88a. But the legitimate privacy expectations of inmates are greatly diminished, see Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U. S. 517, 525-526 (1984), and this Court has never suggested that the failure to provide private consultation rooms in prisons amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

Third, .the court rejected alternatives that would not have provided “ ‘immediate’ ” relief. Juris. App. 148a. But nothing in the PLRA suggests that public safety may be sacrificed in order to implement an immediate remedy rather than a less dangerous one that requires a more extended but reasonable period of time.

If the three-judge court had not made these errors, it is entirely possible that an adequate but less drastic remedial plan could have been crafted. Without up-to-date information, it is not possible to specify what such a plan might provide, and in any event, that is hot a task that should be undertaken in the first instance by this Court. But possible components of such a plan are not hard to identify.

Many of the problems noted above plainly could be addressed without releasing prisoners and without incurring the costs associated with a large-scale prison construction program. Sanitary procedures could be improved; sufficient supplies of medicine and medical equipment could be purchased; an adequate system of records management could be implemented; and the number of medical and other staff positions could be increased. Similarly, it is hard to believe that staffing vacancies cannot be reduced or eliminated and that the qualifications of medical personnel cannot be improved by any means short of a massive prisoner release. Without specific findings backed by hard evidence, this Court should not accept the counterintuitive proposition that these problems cannot be ameliorated by increasing salaries, improving working conditions, and providing better training and monitoring of performance.

*575While the cost of a large-scale construction program may well exceed California’s current financial capabilities, a more targeted program, involving the repair and perhaps the expansion of current medical facilities (as opposed to general prison facilities), might be manageable. After all, any remedy in this case, including the new programs associated with the prisoner release order and other proposed relief now before the three-judge court, will necessarily involve some state expenditures.

Measures such as these might be combined with targeted reductions in critical components of the State’s prison population. A certain number of prisoners in the classes on whose behalf the two cases were brought might.be transferred to out-of-state facilities. The three-judge court rejected the State’s proposal to transfer prisoners to out-of-state facilities in part because the number of proposed transfers was too small. See id., at 160a. See also ante, at 527. But this reasoning rested on the court’s insistence on a reduction in the State’s general prison population rather than the two plaintiff classes.

When the State proposed to make a targeted transfer of prisoners in one of the plaintiff classes (i e., prisoners needing mental health treatment), one of the District Judges blocked the transfers for fear that the out-of-state facilities would not provide a sufficiently high level of care. See App. 434-440. The District Judge even refused to allow out-of-state transfers for prisoners who volunteered for relocation. See id., at 437. And the court did this even though there was not even an allegation, let alone clear evidence, that the States to which these prisoners would have been sent were violating the Eighth Amendment.

The District Judge presumed that the receiving States might fail to provide constitutionally adequate care, but “ ‘in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that [public officers] have properly discharged their official duties.’” United States v. Armstrong, 517 U. S. 456, 464 *576(1996) (quoting United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U. S. 1, 14-15 (1926)); Postal Service v. Gregory, 534 U. S. 1, 10 (2001) (“[A] presumption of regularity attaches to the actions of Government agencies”); see also McKune v. Lile, 536 U. S. 24, 51 (2002) (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (“[W]e may assume that the prison is capable of controlling its inmates so that respondent’s personal safety is not jeopardized , at least in the absence of proof to the contrary”).8

Finally, as a last resort, a much smaller release of prisoners in the two plaintiff classes could be considered. Plaintiffs proposed not only a systemwide population cap, but also a lower population cap for inmates in specialized programs. Tr. 2915:12-15 (Feb. 3, 2009). The three-judge court rejected this proposal, and its response exemplified what went wrong in this case. One judge complained that this remedy would be deficient because it would protect only the members of the plaintiff classes. The judge stated:

“The only thing is we would be protecting the class members. And maybe that’s the appropriate thing to do. I mean, that’s what this ease is about, but it would be ... difficult for me to say yes, and the hell with everybody else.” Id., at 2915:23-2916:2.

Overstepping his authority, the judge was not content to provide relief for the classes of plaintiffs on whose behalf the suit before him was brought. Nor was he content to remedy the only constitutional violations that were proved — which concerned the treatment of the members of those classes. Instead, the judge saw it as his responsibility to attack the general problem of overcrowding.

*577III

Before ordering any prisoner release, the PLRA commands a court to “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.” §3626(a)(1)(A). This provision unmistakably reflects Congress’ view that prisoner release orders are inherently risky.

In taking this view, Congress was well aware of the impact of previous prisoner release orders. The prisoner release program carried out a few years earlier in Philadelphia is illustrative. In the early 1990’s, federal courts enforced a cap on the number of inmates in the Philadelphia prison system, and thousands of inmates were set free. Although efforts were made to release only those prisoners who were least likely to commit violent crimes, that attempt was spectacularly unsuccessful. During an 18-month period, the Philadelphia police rearrested thousands of these prisoners for committing 9,732 new crimes. Those defendants were charged with 79 murders, 90 rapes, 1,113 assaults, 959 robberies, 701 burglaries, and 2,748 thefts, not to mention thousands of drug offenses.9 Members of Congress were well aware of this experience.10

*578Despite the record of past prisoner release orders, the three-judge court in this case concluded that loosing 46,000 criminals would not produce a tally like that in Philadelphia and would actually improve public safety. Juris. App. 248a-249a. In reaching this debatable conclusion, the three-judge court relied on the testimony of selected experts, id., at 248a, and the majority now defers to what it characterizes as the lower court’s findings of fact on this controversial public policy issue, ante, at 512-513, 517, 522.

This is a fundamental and dangerous error. When a trial court selects between the competing views of experts on broad empirical questions such as the efficacy of preventing crime through the incapacitation of convicted criminals, the trial court’s choice is very different from a classic finding of fact and is not entitled to the same degree of deference on appeal.

The particular three-judge court convened in this case was “confident" that releasing 46,000 prisoners pursuant to its plan “would in fact benefit public safety.” Juris. App. 248a-249a. According to that court, “overwhelming evidence” supported this purported finding. Id., at 232a. But a more cautious court, less bent on implementing its own criminal justice agenda, would have at least acknowledged that the consequences of this massive prisoner release cannot be ascertained in advance with any degree of certainty and that it is entirely possible that this release will produce results similar to those under prior court-ordered population caps. After all, the sharp increase in the California prison population that the three-judge court lamented, see id., at 254a, has been accompanied by an equally sharp decrease in violent crime.11 These California trends mirror similar develop*579ments at the national level,12 and “[tjhere is a general consensus that the decline in crime is, at least in part, due to more and longer prison sentences.”13 If increased incarceration in California has led to decreased crime, it is entirely possible that a decrease in imprisonment will have the opposite effect.

Commenting on the testimony of an expert who stated that he could not be certain about the effect of the massive prisoner discharge on public safety, the three-judge court complained that “[sjuch equivocal testimony is not helpful.” Id., at 247a. But testimony pointing out the difficulty of assessing the consequences of this drastic remedy would have been valued by a careful court duly mindful of the overriding need to guard public safety.

The three-judge court acknowledged that it “ha[dj not evaluated the public safety impact of each individual element” of the population reduction plan it ordered the State to implement. App. to Juris. Statement 3a. The majority argues that the three-judge court nevertheless gave substantial weight to public safety because its order left “details of implementation to the State’s discretion.” Ante, at 538. Yet the State had told the three-judge court that, after studying possible population reduction measures, it concluded that “reducing the prison population to 137.5% within *580a two-year period cannot be accomplished without unacceptably compromising public safety.” Juris. App. 317a. The State found that public safety required a 5-year period in which to achieve the ordered reduction. Ibid.

Thus, the three-judge court approved a population reduction plan that neither it nor the State found could be implemented without unacceptable harm to public safety. And this Court now holds that the three-judge court discharged its obligation to “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety,” § 3626(a)(1)(A), by deferring to officials who did not believe the reduction could be accomplished in a safe manner. I do not believe the PLRA’s public-safety requirement is so trivial.

The members of the three-judge court and the experts on whom they relied may disagree with key elements of the crime-reduction program that the State of California has pursued for the past few decades, including “the shift to inflexible determinate sentencing and the passage of harsh mandatory minimum and three-strikes laws.” Id., at 254a. And experts such as the Receiver are entitled to take the view that the State should “re-thin[k] the place of incarceration in its criminal justice system,” App. 489. But those controversial opinions on matters of criminal justice policy should not be permitted to override the reasonable policy view that is implicit in the PLRA — that prisoner release orders present an inherent risk to the safety of the public.

* * *

The prisoner release ordered in this case is unprecedented, improvident, and contrary to the PLRA. In largely sustaining the decision below, the majority is gambling with the safety of the people of California. Before putting public safety at risk, every reasonable precaution should be taken. The decision below should be reversed, and the case should be remanded for this to be done.

*581I fear that today’s decision, like prior prisoner release orders, will lead to a grim roster of victims. I hope that I am -wrong.

In a few years, we will see.

Mr. Justice Peckham,

after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court..

We recognize and appreciate' to the fullest extent the very great importance of this case, not only to the parties now before the court, but also to the great mass of the citizens of this country^ all of whom are interested in the practical working of the courts of justice throughout the land, both Federal and state, and in the proper exercise of the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, as limited and controlled by the Federal Constitution and the laws of Congress.

That there has been room for difference of opinion with regard to such limitations the reported cases in this court bear conclusive testimony. It cannot be stated that the case before us is entirely free from any possible doubt nor that intelligent men may not differ as to the correct answer to the question we are called upon to decide.

The question of jurisdiction, whether of the Circuit Court' or of this court, is frequently a delicate matter to deal with, and it is especially so in this case, where the material and most important objection to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is the assertion that the suit is in effect against one of the States of the Union. It is a question, however, which we are called upon, and which it is our duty, to decide. Under these circumstances, the language of Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404, is most apposite. In that case he said:

*143“It is most true that this court will not take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp- that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously perform our duty.”

Coming to a consideration of the case, we find that the complainants in the suit commenced ip the Circuit Court were ' stockholders in the Northern Pacific Railway Company, and the reason for commencing it and making the railroad company one of the parties defendant is sufficiently set forth in the bill.- Davis &c. Co. v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207, 220; Equity Rule 94, Supreme Court.

It is primarily asserted on the part of the petitioner that jurisdiction did not exist in the Circuit Court because there was not the requisite diversity of citizenship, and there was no question arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States to otherwise give jurisdiction to that court. There is no claim made here of jurisdiction on the ground of diversity of citizenship, and the claim, if made, would be unfounded in fact. ‘ If no other ground exists, then the order of the Circuit Court, assuming to punish petitioner for contempt, was an unlawful order, made by a court without’jurisdiction. In such case this court, upon proper application, will discharge the person from imprisonment. Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U. S. 651; Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713; In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 485. But an examination of the record before us shows that there are Federal questions in this case.

It is insisted by the petitioner that there is no Federal ques-*144jbion: presented under the. Fourteenth Amendment, because there is no dispute as to the meaning of the Constitution, where it provides that no State, shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal .protection'of the laws, and whatever , dispute there may be in this case is one of fact simply; whether the freight or passenger rates as fixed by the legislature1 or by the railroad commission are so low as to be confiscatory, and that is not a Federal question.

Jurisdiction is-given to the Circuit Court in suits involving the requisite amount, arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States (1 U. S. Comp. Stat. p. 508), and the ques-' tion really to be determined under this objection is whether rthe acts of the legislature and the orders of the railroad commission,- if enforced, would take property without due process . of- law, and although that question might incidentally involve a question of fact, its solution nevertheless is one which raises a Federal question. See Hastings v. Ames (C. C. A. 8th Circuit); 68 Fed. Rep. 726. The sufficiency of rates with reference to the Federal Constitution is a judicial question, and one oyer which Federal courts have, jurisdiction by reason of its Federal nature. Chicago &c. R. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418; Reagan v. Farmers’ &c. Co., 154 U. S. 369, 399; St. Louis &c. Co. v. Gill, 156 U. S. 649; Covington &c: Turnpike Road Company v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578; Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 522; Chicago &c. Railway Co. v. Tompkins, 176 U. S. 167, 172.

'ÁnothérjFederal question is the alleged unconstitutionality of these acts because' of the enormous penalties denounced for théir. violation, which prevent the railway company, as alleged, or any of- its servants or employés, from resorting to ±he courts for the purpose of determining the validity of such acts. The contention Is urged by the complainants in the suit that thq company is denied the equal protection of the ‘laws and its property is. liable to' be taken without due process of law, because -it is only allowed a hearing upon the claim of • *145the unconstitutionality of the acts and orders in question, at the risk, if mistaken, of being, subjected to such enormous penalties, resulting in the possible confiscation of its whole property, that rather than take such risks,the company would obey the laws, although such obedience might also result in the end (though by a slower process) in such confiscation.

Still another Federal question is urged, growing out of the assertion that the laws are, by their necessary effect, an interference with and a regulation of interstate commerce, the grounds for which assertion it is not now necessary to enlarge upon. The question is not, at any rate, frivolous.

We conclude that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction in the case before it, because it involved the decision of Federal questions arising under the Constitution of the United States.

Coming to the inquiry regarding the alleged invalidity of these acts, we take up the contention that they are invalid on their face on account of the penalties. For disobedience to the freight act the officers, directors, agents and employés of the company are made guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction each may be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not exceeding ninety days. Each violation would be a separate offense, and, therefore, might result in imprisonment of the various agents of the company who would dare disobey for a term of ninety days each for each offense. Disobedience to the passenger rate act renders the party guilty of a felony and subject to a fine'not exceeding' five thousand dollars or imprisonment in the state prison for a period not exceeding five years, or both fine and imprisonment. The sale of each ticket above the price permitted by the act would be a violation thereof. It would-be difficult, if not impossible, for the company to obtain officers, agents or employés willing to carry on its affairs except in obedience to the act and orders in question. The company itself would also, in case of disobedience, be liable to the immense fines provided for in violating orders of the Commission. The company, in order to test the validity of the acts, must find some *146agent or employé to-disobey them at the risk stated. The necessary effect and result of such legislation must be to preclude a resort to the courts (either state or Federal) for the purpose of testing its validity. The officers and employés could not be expected to disobey any of the provisions of the acts or orders at the risk of such fines and penalties being imposed upon them, in case the court should decide that the law was valid. The result would be a denial of any hearing to the company. The observations upon a similar question made by Mr. Justice Brewer in Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Company, 183 U. S. 79, 99, 100, 102, afe very apt. At page 100 he stated: “Do the' laws .secure to an individual an equal protection when' he is allowed to come into court and make his claim or defense subject to the condition that upon a failure to make good that claim or ^ defense the penalty for such failure either appropriates all his' property or subjects him to extravagant and unreasonable loss?” Again, at page 102, he says: “It is doubtless true that the State may impose penalties, such as will tend to compel obedience to its mandates by all, individuals or corporations, and if extreme and cumulative penalties are imposed only after there has been a final determination of the validity of the statute, the question would be very different from that here presented. But when the legislature, in aii' effort' to prevent any inquiry of the validity of a particular statute, so burdens any challenge thereof, in the courts that(',the party affected is necessarily constrained to submit rather than take the chances of the penalties imposed, then it becomes a serious question whether the party is not deprived of the equal protection of the laws.” The question was not decided in that case, as it went off on another ground. We have the same question now before us, only the penalties are more severe in the way of fines, to which is added, in the case of officers, agents or employés of the company, the risk of imprisonment for years as a common felon. See also Mercantile Trust Co. v. Texas &c. Ry. Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 529, 543; Louisville &c. R. R. Co. v. McChord, 103 *147Fed. Rep. 216, 223; Consolidated Gas Co. v. Mayer, 146 Fed. Rep. 150, 153. In McGahey v. Virginia, 135 U. S. 662, 694, it was held that to provide a different remedy to enforce a contract, which is unreasonable, and which imposes conditions not existing when the contract was made, was to offer no remedy, and whgn the remedy is so onerous and impracticable as to substantially give hone at all the law is invalid, although what is termed a remedy is in fact "given. See also Bronson v. Kinzie, 1 How. 311, 317; Seibert v. Lewis, 122 U. S. 284. If the law be such as to make the decision of the legislature or of a commission conclusive as to the sufficiency of the rates,

. this court has held such a law to be unconstitutional. Chicago &c. Railway Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418. A law which indirectly accomplishes a like result by imposing such conditions upon the right to appeal for judicial relief as works an abandonment of the right rather than face the conditions .upon which it is offered or may be obtained, is also unconstitutional. It may. therefore be said that when the penalties for disobedience are by fines so enormous and imprisonment so severe as to intimidate the company and its officers from resorting to the courts to test the validity of the legislation,, the result is the same as if the law in terms prohibited the company from seeking judicial construction of laws w^ich deeply afféet» its rights.

It is urged that there is no principle upon which to base the claim that a person is entitled to disobey a statute at least once, for the purpose of testing its validity without subjecting himself to the penalties for disobedience provided by the statute in case it is valid. This is not.- an accurate statement of the case. Ordinarily a law creating offenses in the nature of misdemeanors or felonies relates to a subject over which the jurisdiction of the legislature is complete in any event.. In the case, however, of the establishment of certain rates -without any hearing, the validity of such rates necessarily depends upon whether they are high enough to permit at least some return upon, the investment (how much it is not now *148necessary to state), and an inquiry as to that fact is a proper subject of judicial investigation. If it turns out that the rates are too low for that purpose, then they are illegal. Now, to impose upon a party interested the burden of obtaining a judicial decision of such a question (no prior hearing having ever been given) only upon the condition that if unsuccessful he must suffer imprisonment and pay fines as provided in these acts, is, in effect, to close up all approaches to the courts, and thus prevent any hearing upon the question whether the rates as provided by the acts are not too low, and therefore invalid. The distinction is obvious between a case where the validity of the act depends upon the existence of a fact which can be determined only after investigation of a very compli-. cated and technical character, and the ordinary case of a statute upon a subject requiring no such investigation and over which the jurisdiction of the legislature is complete in any event.

We hold, therefore, that the provisions of the acts relating to the enforcement of the rates, either for freight or passengers, by imposing such enormous fines and possible imprisonment as a result of an unsuccessful effort to test the validity of the laws themselves, are unconstitutional on their face, without regard to the question of the insufficiency of those rates. We also hold that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction under the cases already cited (and it was therefore its duty) to inquire whether the rates permitted by these acts or orders were too low and therefore confiscatory, and if so held, that the court then had jurisdiction to permanently enjoin the railroad company from putting them in force, and that it also had power, while the inquiry was pending, to grant a temporary injunction to the same effect.

Various affidavits were received upon the hearing before the court prior to the granting of the temporary injunction, and the hearing itself was, as appears from the opinion, full and deliberate, and the fact was found that the rates fixed by the commodity act, ünder the circumstances .existing with *149reference to the passenger rate act and the orders of the Commission, were not sufficient' to be compensatory, and were in fact confiscatory, and the act was therefore unconstitutional. The injunction was thereupon granted with reference to the enforcement of the commodity act.

We have, therefore, upon this record the case of án unconstitutional act of the state legislature and an intention by the Attorney General of the State to endeavor to enforce its provisions, to the injury of the company, in compelling it, at great expense, to defend legal proceedings of a complicated and unusual character, and involving questions of vast importance to all employés and officers of the company, as well as to the company itself. The question that arises is whether there is a remedy that the parties interested may resort to, by going into a Federal court of equity, in a case involving a violation of the Federal Constitution, .and obtaining a judicial investigation of the -problem, and pending its solution obtain freedom from suits, civil or criminal, by a temporary injunction, and if the question be finally decided favorably to the contention of the company, a permanent injunction restraining all such actions or proceedings.

This inquiry necessitates an examination of the most material and important objection made to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, the objection being that the suit is, in effect, one against the State of Minnesota, and that the injunction issued against the Attorney General illegally prohibits state action, either criminal or civil, to enforce obedience to the. statutes of the State. This objection is to be considered with reference to the Eleventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits the commencement or prosecution of any suit against one of the United States by citizens of another State- or citizens or subj ects of any foreign State. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall it deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

*150The case before the, Circuit Court proceeded ‘upon the theory that the orders and acts heretofore mentioned would, if enforced, violate rights' df the complainants protected by the latter Amendment. We think that whatever the rights, of complainants may be., they are largely founded upon that. Amendment, but a decision of this case does not require an examination or decision.', of. the' question whether its adoption in any way altered or limited the effect of the earlier Amendment. We may assume that each exists in full force, and that we must give to the Eleventh Amendment all the. effect it naturally would have, without cutting it down or rendering its meaning any more narrow than the language, fairly interpreted, would warrant. It applies to a suit brought against a State by one of its own citizens as well as to a suit brought by a citizen of another State. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 14. It was- adopted after the decision of this court in Chisholm v. Georgia, (1793), 2 Dall. 419 where it . was held that a State might be sued by a citizen of another State. Since that time there have been many cases decided in this court involving the Eleventh Amendment, among them being Osborn v. United States Bank (1824), 9 Wheat. 738, 846, 857, which .held that the Amendment applied only to those suits in which the State was a party on the record. In the subsequent case of Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo (1828), 1 Pet. 110, 122, 123, that holding was somewhat enlarged, and Chief Justice Marshall, delivering the opinion of the court, while citing Osborn v. United States Bank, supra, said that where the claim was made, as in the case then before the court, against the Governor of Georgia as governor, and the demand was made upon him, not personally, but officially (for moneys in the treasury of the State and for slaves in possession of the state government), the State might be considered as the party on the record (page 123), and therefore the suit could not be maintained.

Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 220, reiterates the rule of Osborn v. United States Bank, so far as concerns the right to enjoin a state officer from executing a state law in conflict with *151the Constitution or a statute of the United States, when such execution will violate the rights of the complainant.

In Virginia Coupon Cases, 114 U. S. 270, 296 (Poindexter v. Greenhow), it was adjudged that a suit against a tax collector who had refused coupons in payment of taxes, and, undér color of a void law, was about to seize and sell the property of a taxpayer for non-payment of his taxes, was a suit against him personally as a wrongdoer and not against the Staté.

Hagood v. Southern, 117 U. S. 52, 67, decided that the bill was in substance a bill for the specific performance of a contract between the complainants and the State of South Carolina, and, although the State was not in name made a party defendant, yet being the actual party to the alleged contract the performance of which was sought and the only party by whom it could be performed, the State was, in, effect, a party to the suit, and it could not be maintained for that reason. The things required to be done by the actual defendants were the very things which when done would constitute a performance of the alleged contract by the State.

The cases upon the subject were reviewed, and it was held, In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, that a bill in equity brought against officers of a State, who, as individuals, have no personal interest in the subject-matter of the suit, and defend only as representing the State, where the relief prayed for, if done, would constitute a .performance by the State of the alleged contract of the State, was a suit against the State (page 504), following in this respect Hagood v. Southern, supra.

A suit of such a nature was simply an attempt to make the State itself, through its officers, perform its alleged contract, by directing those officers to do acts which constituted such performance. The State alone had any interest in the question, and a decree in favor of plaintiff would affect the treasury of the State.

On the other hand, United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196, determined that an individual in possession of real estate under the. Government of the United States, which claimed to be *152its owner, was, nevertheless, properly sued by the plaintiff, as owner, to, recover possession,-and such suit was not one against the United States, although the individual in possession justified such possession under its authority. See also Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204, to the same effect.

In Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1, 9, a suit against land commissioners of the State was said not to be against the State, although the complainants sought to restrain the defendants, officials of the State, from violating, under an unconstitutional act, the complainants’ contract with the State, and thereby working irreparable damage to the property rights' of the complainants. Osborn v. United States Bank, supra, was cited, and it was stated: “But the general doctrine of Osborn v. Bank of the United States, that the Circuit Courts of the United States will restrain a state officer from executing an unconstitutional statute of the State, when to execute it would violate rights and privileges of the complainant which had .been guaranteed by the Constitution, and would work irreparable damage and injury to him, has never been departed from. ' The same principle is decided in Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58, 67. And see Missouri &c. v. Missouri Railroad Commissioners, 183 U. S. 53.

The cases above cited do not include one exactly like this under discussion. They serve to illustrate the principles upon which many cases have been decided. We have not cited all the cases,-as we have not thought it necessary. But the injunction asked for in the Ayers Case, 123 U. S. (supra),'was to restrain the state officers from commencing suits under the act of May 12, 1887 (alleged to be unconstitutional), in the ñame of the State- and brought to recover taxes for its use, on the ground that if such suits were commenced they would be a breach of a contract with the State. The injunction was declared illegal because the suit itself could not be entertained .as it was one against the State to enforce its alleged contract. It was said, however, that if the court had power to entertain such a suit, it would have power to grant the restraining order *153preventing the commencement of suits. (Page 487.) It was not stated that the suit or the injunction was necessarily confined to a case of a threatened direct trespass upon or injury to property.

Whether the commencement of a suit could ever be regarded as an actionable injury to another, equivalent in some cases to a trespass such as is set forth in some of the foregoing cases, has received attention in the rate cases, so called. Reagan v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362 (a rate case), was a suit against the members of a railroad commission (created under an act of the State of Texas) and the Attorney General, all of whom Were held suable, and that such suit was not one against the State. The Commission' was enjoined from enforcing the rates it had established under the act, and the Attorney General was enjoined from instituting suits to recover penalties for failing to conform to the rates fixed by the Commission under such act. ’ It is true the statute in that case creating the board provided that suit might be maintained by any dissatisfied railroad company, or other party in interest,, in a court of competent jurisdiction in Travis County, Texas, against the Commission as defendant. This court held that such language. permitted a suit in the United States Circuit Court for the Western District of Texas, which embraced Travis County, but it also held that, irrespective of that consent, the suit was not in effect a suit against the State (although the Attorney General was enjoined), and therefore not prohibited under the amendment. It was said in the opinion, which was delivered by Mr. Justice Brewer, that the suit could not in any fair sense be considered a suit against the State (page 392), and the conclusion of the court was that the objection to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was not tenable, whether that jurisdiction was rested (page 393), “upon the provisions of the statute or upon the general jurisdiction of the court existing by virtue of the statutes of Congress and the sanction of the Constitution of the United States.” Each- of these grounds is effective and both are of equal force. *154Union Pacific &c. v. Mason City Company, 199 U. S. 160, 166.

In Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466 (another rate case), it was again held that a suit against individuals, for the purpose of preventing them, as officers of the State, from enforcing, by the commencement of suits or by indictment, an unconstitutional enactment to the injury of the rights of the plaintiff, was not' a suit against a State, within the meaning of the Amendment. At page 518, in answer to the objection that the suit was really against the State, it was said: “It is the settled doctrine of this court that a suit against individuals for the purpose of preventing them as officers of a State from enforcing an unconstitutional enactment .to the injury of the rights of the plaintiff, is not a suit against the State within the meaning of that Amendment.” The suit was to enjoin the enforcement of a statute of Nebraska because it was alleged to be unconstitutional, on account of the rates being too low to afford some compensation to the company, and contrary, therefore, to the Fourteenth Amendment.

There was no special provision in the' statute as to rates, making it the duty of the Attorney General to enforce it, but under his general powers he had authority to ask for a mandamus to enforce such or any other law. State of Nebraska ex rel. &c. v. The Fremont &c. Railroad Co., 22 Nebraska, 313.

The final decree enjoined the Attorney General from bringing any suit (page 477) by way of injunction, mandamus, civil action or indictment, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the act. The fifth section of the act provided that an action might be brought by.a railroad company in the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska; but this court did not base its decision on that section when it held that a suit of the nature of that before it was not a suit against a State, although brought against individual state officers for the purpose of enjoining -them from enforcing, either by civil proceeding or indictment, an unconstitutional enactment to the injury of the plaintiff’s right. (Page 518.)

*155This decision was reaffirmed in Prout v. Starr, 188 U. S. 537, 542.

Attention is also directed to the case of Missouri &c. Rwy. Co. v. Missouri R. R. &c. Commissioners, 183 U. S. 53. That was a suit brought in a state court of Missouri by the railroad commissioners of the State, who had the powers granted them by the statutes set forth in the report. Their suit was against the railway company to compel it to discontinue certain charges it Was making for crossing the Boonville bridge over the Missouri River. The defendant sought to remove the case to the Federal court, which the plaintiffs resisted, and the state court refused to remove on the ground that the real plaintiff was the State of Missouri, and it was proper to go behind the face of the record to determine that fact. In regular manner the case came here, and this court held that the State was not the real party plaintiff, and the case had therefore' been properly removed from the state court, whose judgment was thereupon reversed.

Applying the same principles of construction to the removal act which had been applied to the Eleventh Amendment, it was said by this court that the State might be. the real party plaintiff when the relief sought enures to it alone, and in. whose-favor the judgment or decree, if for the plaintiff, will effectively operate.

Although the case is one arising under the removal act and does not involve the Eleventh Amendment, it nevertheless illustrates the question now before us, and reiterates the doctrine that the State is not a party to a suit simply because the State Railroad Commission is such party.

The doctrine of Smyth v. Ames is also referred to and reiterated in Gunter, Attorney General, v. Atlantic &c. Railroad Co., 200 U. S. 273, 283. See also McNeill v. Southern Railway, 202 U. S. 543-559; Mississippi Railroad Commission v. Illinois &c. Railroad Co., 203 U. S. 335, 340.

The various authorities we have referred to furnish ample justification for the assertion that individuals, who, as officers *156of the State, are clothed with some duty in regard to the enforcement of the laws of the State, and who threaten and are about to commence proceedings, either of a civil or criminal nature, to enforce against parties affected an unconstitutional act, violating the Federal Constitution, may be enjoined by a Federal court of equity from such action.

It-is objected, however, that Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516, has somewhat limited this principle, and that, upon the authority of that case, it must be held that the State was a party to the suit in the United States Circuit Court, and the bill should have been dismissed as to the Attorney General on that ground.

We do not think such contention is well founded. The doctrine of Smyth v. Ames was neither overruled nor doubted in the Fitts case. In that case the Alabama legislature, by the act of 1895, fixed the tolls to be charged for crossing the bridge. The penalties for disobeying that act, by demanding and re--ceiving-higher tolls, were to be collected by the persons pay- ' ing them. No officer of the State had any official connection with the recovery of such penalties. The indictments mentioned were found under another state statute, set forth at page '520 of the report of the case, which provided a fine against an officer of a company for taking any greater rate of toll than was authorized b¿t its charter, or, if the charter' did not specify the amount, then the fine was imposed for charging any unreasonable toll, to be determined by a jury. This act was not claimed to be unconstitutional, and the indictments found under it were not necessarily connected with the alleged unconstitutional act fixing the tolls. As no state officer who was made a party bore any close official connection with the act fixing the tolls, the making of such officer a party defendant was a simple effort to test the constitutioriality of such act in that way, and there is no principle upon which it could be done. A state superintendent of schools might as well have been made a party. In the light of this fact it was said in the opinion (page 530):

*157“In the present case, as we have said, neither of the State officers named held any special relation to the particular statute alleged to be unconstitutional. They were not expressly directed to see to its enforcement. If, because they were law officers of the State, a case could be made for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of the statute, by an injunction suit brought against them, then the constitutionality of every act passed by the legislature could be tested by a suit against the governor and the attorney general, based upon the theory that the former, as the executive of the State was, in a general sense, charged with the execution of all its laws, and the latter, as attorney general, might represent the State in litigation involving the enforcement of its statutes. That would be a very convenient way for obtaining a speedy judicial determination of questions of constitutional law which may be raised by individuals, but it is a mode which cannot be applied to the States of the Union consistently with, the fundamental principle that they cannot, without their assent, be brought into any court at the suit of private persons.”

In making an officer of the State a party defendant in a suit to enjoin the enforcement of an act alleged to be unconstitutional it is plain that such officer must have some connection with the enforcement of the a,ct, or else it is merely making him. a party as a representative of the State, and thereby attempting to make the State a party.

• It has not, however, been held that it was necessary that such duty should be declared in the same act which is to be enforced. In some cases, it is true, the duty of enforcement has been.so imposed (154 U. S. 362, 366, § 19 of the act), but that'may possibly make the duty more clear; if. it otherwise exist it is equally efficacious. The fact that the state officer by virtue of his office has some connection with' the enforcement of. the act is the important and material fact, and whether it - arises out of the general law, or is specially created by the act itself, is not material so long as it exists.

In the course of the opinion in the Fitts case the Reagan and *158Smyth cases were referred to (with others) as instances of state officers specially charged with the execution of a state enactment alleged to be unconstitutional, and who commit under its authority some specific wrong or trespass to the injury of plaintiff’s rights. In those cases the only wrong or injury or trespass involved was the threatened commencement of suits to enforce the statute as to rates, and the threat of such commencement was in each case regarded as sufficient to authorize the issuing of an injunction to prevent the same. The threat to commence those suits under such circumstances was therefore necessarily held to be equivalent to any other threatened wrong or injury to the property of a plaintiff which had theretofore been held sufficient to authorize the suit against the officer. The being specially charged with the duty to enforce the statute is sufficiently apparent when such duty exists under the general authority of some law, even though such authority is not to be found in the particular act. It might exist by reason of the general duties of the officer to enforce it as a law of the State.

The officers in the Fitts case occupied the position of having . no duty at all with regard to the act, and could not be properly made parties to the suit for the reason stated.

It is also objected that as the statute does not specifically make it the duty of the Attorney General (assuming he has that general right) to enforce it, he has under such circumstances a full general discretion whether to attempt its enforcement or not, and the court' cannot interfere to control him as • Attorney General in the exercise of his discretion.

In our view there is no interference with his discretion under the facts herein. There is no doubt that the court cannot control the exercise of the discretion of an officer. It can only direct affirmative action where the officer having some duty to perform not involving discretion, but merely ministerialin its nature, refuses or neglects to take such action. In that case the court can direct the defendant to perform this merely ministerial duty. Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 U. S. 531, 541.

*159The general discretion regarding the enforcement of the laws when and as he deems appropriate is not interfered with by an injunction which restrains the state officer from taking any steps towards the enforcement of an unconstitutional enactment to the injury of complainant. In such case no affirmative action of any nature is directed, and the officer is simply prohibited from doing an act which ho had no legal right to do. An injunction to prevent him from doing that which he has no legal right to do is not an interference with the discretion of an officer.

It is'also argued that the only proceeding which the Attorney General could take to enforce the statute, so far as his office is concerned, was one by mandamus, which would be commenced by the State in its sovereign and governmental character, and that the right to bring such action is a necessary attribute of a sovereign government. It is contended that the complainants do not complain and they care nothing about any action which Mr. Young might take or bring as an ordinary individual, but that he was complained of as an officer, to whose discretion is confided the use of the name of the State-of Minnesota so far as litigation is concerned, and that when or how he shall use it is a matter resting in his discretion and cannot be controlled by any court.

The answer to all this is the same as made in every case where an official claims to be acting under the authority of the State. The act to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional, and if.it be so, the use of the name of the State to enforce an unconstitutional act to the injury of complainants is a proceeding without the authority of and one which does not affect the State in its sovereign or governmental capacity. It is simply an illegal act upon the part of a state official in attempting by the use of the name of the State to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If. the act which the state Attorney General seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal. Constitution, the officer in proceeding under such enactment comes into conflict with the *160superior authority of that Constitution, and he is in that case stripped of his official or representative character and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. See In re Ayers, supra, page 507. It would be an injury to complainant to harass'it with a multiplicity of suits or litigation generally in an endeavor to enforce penalties under an unconstitutional enactment, and to prevent it ought to be within the jurisdiction of a court of equity. If the question of unconstitutionality with reference, at least, to the Federal Constitution be first raised in a Federal court that court, as we think is shown by the authorities cited hereafter, has the right to decide it to the exclusion of all other courts.

The question remains whether the Attorney General had, by the law of the State, so far as concerns these rate acts, any duty with regard to the enforcement of the same. By his official conduct it seems that he regarded it as a duty connected with his office to compel the company to obey the commodity act, for he commenced proceedings to enforce such obedience immediately- after the injunction issued, at the risk of being found guilty of contempt by so doing.

The duties of the Attorney General, as decided by the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota,- are created partly by statute and exist partly as at common law.- State ex rel. Young, Attorney General, v. Robinson (decided June 7, 1907), 112 N. W. Rep. 269. In the above-cited case^it was held that the Attorney General might institute, conduct and maintain all suits and proceedings he might deem necessary for the enforcement of the laws of the State, the preservation of order and the protection, of public rights, and that there were no statutory restrictions in that State limiting the duties of the. Attorney General in such case.

Section 3 .of chapter 227 of the General Laws of Minnesota, 1905 (same law, §58, Revised Laws of Minnesota., 1905), *161imposes the duty upon the Attorney General to cause proceedings to be instituted against any corporation whenever it shall have offended against the law's of the State. By § 1960 of the Revised Laws of 1905 it is also provided that the Attorney General shall be ex officio attorney for the railroad commission and it is made his duty to institute and prosecute all actions which the Commission shall order brought, and shall render the commissioners all counsel and advice necessary for the proper performance of their duties.

It is said that the Attorney General is only bound to act when the Commission orders action to be brought, and that § 5 of the commodity act (April 18, 1907) expressly provides that no duty shall rest upon the Commission to enforce the act, and hence no duty other than that which is discretionary rests upon the Attorney General in that matter. The provision is somewhat unusual, but' the reasons for its insertion in that act are not material, and neither require nor justify' comment by this court.

It would seem to be clear that the Attorney General, under his power existing at common law and by virtue of these various statutes, had a general duty imposed upon him, which includes the right and the power to enforce the statutes of the State, including, of course, the act in question, if it were constitutional. His power by virtue of his office sufficiently connected him with the duty of enforcement to make him a proper party to a. suit of the nature of the one now before the United States Circuit Court.

It is further objected' (and the objection really forms.part of the contention that the State cannot be sued) that -a court-of equity has no jurisdiction to enjoin criminal proceedings, by indictment or otherwise, under the state law. This, as' a . general rule, is true. But there are exceptions. When such indictment or proceeding is brought to enforce an alleged unconstitutional statute, which is the subject matter of inquiry in a suit already pending in a Federal court, the latter court having first obtained jurisdiction over the subject matter, has *162the right, in both civil and criminal cases, to hold and maintain such jurisdiction, to the exclusion of all other courts, until its duty is fully performed. Front v. Starr, 188 U. S. 537, 544. But the Federal cpurt cannot, of course, interfere in a case where the proceedings were already pending in a -¡state court. Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366, 370; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148.

Where one commences a criminal proceeding who is already party to a suit then pending in a court of equity, if the criminal proceedings are brought to enforce the same'right that is in issue before that court, the latter may enjoin such criminal proceedings.' Davis &c. Co. v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207. In Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223-241, it is remarked by Mr. Justice Day, in delivering the 'Opinion of the court, that “it is well settled that where property rights, will be destroyed, unlawful interference by criminal proceedings under a void law or ordinance may be reached and. controlled by a court of equity.”' Smyth v. Ames (supra) distinctly enjoined the proceedings by indictment to compel obedience to the rate act.

These cases show that a court of equity is not always precluded- from granting an injunction to stay proceedings in criminal cases, and we have no doubt the principle appliés in a case such as the present. In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200, 211,-is not to the contrary. That case holds that in general a court of equity has no jurisdiction of a bill to stay criminal proceedings, but it expressly states an exception, “unless they are instituted by a party to the suit already pending before it and to try the same right that is in issue there.” Various authorities are cited to sustain the exception. The criminal proceedings here that could be commenced by the state authorities would-be under the statutes relating to passenger or freight rates, and their validity is the very question involved in the. suit in the United States Circuit Court. The right to Restrain proceedings by mandamus is- based upon the same foundation and governed by the same principles.

*163It is proper to add that the right to enjoin an individual, even .though a state official, from commencing suits under circumstances already stated, does not include the power to restrain a- court from acting in any case brought before it, either of a civil or criminal nature, nor does it include power to prevent any investigation or action by a grand jury. The latter body is part of the machinery of a criminal court, and an injunction against a state court would bé a violation of the whole scheme of our Government. If an injunction against an individual is disobeyed, and he. commences proceedings before a grand jury or in a court, such disobedience is personal only, and the court or jury can proceed without incurring any penalty on that account.

The difference between the power to enjoin an individual from doing certain things, and the power to enjoin courts from proceeding in their own way to exercise jurisdiction is plain, and no power to do the latter exists because of a power to do ■the former.

It is further objected that there is a plain and adequate remedy at law open to the complainants and that a court of equity, therefore, has no jurisdiction in such case. It has been suggested that the proper way to test the constitutionality of the act is to disobey it, at least once, after which the company might obey the act pending subsequent proceedings to test its validity. But in the event of a single violation the prosecutor might not avail himself, of the opportunity to make the test, as obedience to the law was thereafter continued, and he might think it unnecessary to start an inquiry. If, however, he should do so while the company was' thereafter obeying the law, several years might elapse before there was a final determination of the question, and if it should be determined that the law was invalid the 'property of the company would have been taken during that time without due process of law, and there would be no possibility of its recovery.

Another obstacle to making the test on the part of the company might be to find an agent ór employé who would disobey *164the law, with a possible fine and imprisonment staring him in the face if the act .should be held valid. Take the passenger rate act, for instance: A sale of a single ticket above the price mentioned in that act might subject the ticket agent to a charge of felony, and upon conviction to a fine of five thousand dollars and imprisonment for five years. It:is true the company might pay the fine, but the imprisonment the agent, would , have to suffer personally. It would not be wonderful if, under such circumstances, there would not be a crowd of agents offering to disobey the law. The wonder would be that a single agent should be found ready to take the risk.

If, however, one should be found and the prosecutor should elect to proceed against him, the defense that the act was invalid, because the ratés established. by it were too low, would require a long and difficult examination of quite complicated facts upon which the validity of the act dépended.' Such investigation it would be almost impossible to make before a jury, as such body could not intelligently pass upon the matter. Questions of the cost of transportation of pas- • sengers and freight, the net earnings of the road, the separation of the cost and earnings, within the State from those arising beyond its boundaries, all depending upon the testimony of experts and the examination of figures relating to these subjects, as well, possibly, as the expenses attending the building and proper cost of the road, would necessarily form the chief matter of inquiry, and intelligent answers- could only be given after a careful and prolonged examination of the whole evidence, and the making of calculations based thereon. All material evidence having been taken upon these issues, it has been held that it ought to be referred to the most competent and reliable master to make all needed computations and to find therefrom the necessary facts upon which a judgment might be rendered that might be reviewed by this court. Chicago &c. Railway Co. v. Tompkins, 176 U. S. 167. Prom all these considerations it is plain that this is not a proper suit for investigation by a jury. Suits for penalties, or in*165dictment or other criminal proceedings for a violation of the act, would therefore furnish no reasonable or adequate opportunity for the presentation of a defense founded upon the assertion that the rates were too low and therefore the act invalid.

We do not say the company could not interpose this defense in an action to recover penalties or upon the trial of an indictment (St. Louis &c. Ry. Co. v. Gill, 156 U. S. 649), but the facility of proving it in either case falls so far below that which would obtain in a court of equity that comparison is scarcely possible.

To await proceedings against the company in a state court grounded upon a disobedience of the act, and then, if necessary, obtain a review in this court by writ of error to the highest state court, would place the company in peril of large loss and its agents in great risk of fines and imprisonment if it should be finally determined that the act was valid. This risk the company ought not to be required to' take. Over eleven thousand millions of dollars, it is estimated, are invested in railroad property, owned by many thousands of people who are scattered over the whole country from océan to .ocean, and they are entitléd to equal protection from the laws and from the courts, with the owners of all other kinds of property, no more, no less. The courts having jurisdiction, ‘ Federal or state, should at all times be open to them as well as to others, for. the purpose of protecting their property and their legal rights.

All the objections to a remedy at law as being plainly.inadequate are obviated by a suit in equity, making all-who are directly interested parties to the suit, and. enjoining the enforcement of the act until the decision of the court upon the legal'question.

An act .of the legislature'1 fixing .rates, either for passengers. or freight, is to be regarded las prima facie valid, and the onus rests upon the company to provedts assertion to the contrary. Under such circumstances it was stated by Mr. Justice Miller, *166in his concurring opinion in Chicago &c. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 418, 460, that the proper, if not the only, mode of judicial relief against the tariff of rates established by the legislature or by its Commission is by a bill in chancery, asserting its unreasonable character, and that until the decree of the court in such equity suit was obtained it was not competent for' each individual having dealings with a carrier, or for the carrier in regard to each individual who demands its services, to raise a contest in the courts over the questions which ought to be settled in this general and conclusive manner. This remedy by bill in equity is referred to and approved by Mr. Justice Shiras, in delivering the opinion of the court in St. Louis &c. Co. v. Gill, 156 U. S. 649, 659, 666, although that question was not then directly before the court. Such remedy is undoubtedly the most convenient, the most comprehensive and the most orderly way in which the rights of all parties can be properly, fairly and adequately passed upon. It cannot be to the real interest of anyone to injure or cripple the resources of the railroad companies of the country, because the prosperity of both the railroads and the country is most intimately connected. The question of sufficiency of rates is important and controlling, and being of a judicial nature it ought to be settled at the earliest moment by some court, and when a Federal court first obtains jurisdiction it ought, on general-principles of jurisprudence, to be permitted to finish the inquiry and make a conclusive judgment to the exclusion of all other courts.x This is all that is claimed, and this, we think, must be admitted.

Finally it is objected that the necessary result of upholding this suit in the Circuit Court will be to draw to the lower Federal courts a great flood of litigation of this character, where one Federal judge would have it in his power to enjoin proceedings by state officials to enforce the legislative acts of the State, either by criminal or civil actions. To this it may be answered, in the .first place, that no injunction ought to be granted unless in a case reasonably free from doubt. We *167think such rule is, and will be, followed by all the judges of the Federal courts.

And, again, it must be remembered that jurisdiction of this general character has, in fact, been exercised by Federal courts from the time of Osborn v. United States Bank up to the present; the only difference in regard to the case of Osborn and thé case in hand being that in this case the injury complained of is the threatened commencement of suits, civil or criminal, to enforce the act, instead of, as in the Osborn case, an actual and direct trespass upon or interference with tangible property. A bill filed to prevent the commencement of suits to enforce an unconstitutional act, under the circumstances already mentioned, is no new invention, as we have already seen. The difference between an actual and direct interference with tangible property and the enjoining of state officers from enforcing an unconstitutional act, is not of a radical nature, and does not extend, in truth, the jurisdiction of the courts over the subject matter. In the case of the interference with property the person enjoined is assuming to act in his capacity as an official of the State, and justification for his interference is claimed by reason of his position as a state official. Such official cannot so justify when acting under an unconstitutional enactment of the legislature. So, where the state official, instead of directly interfering with tangible property, is abouj; to commence suits, which have for their object the enforcement of an act which violates the Federal Constitution, to the great and irreparable injury of the complainants, he is seeking the same justification from the authority of the State as in other cases. The sovereignty of the State is, in reality, no more involved in one case than in the other. The State cannot in either case impart to the official immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. See In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 507.

This supreme authority, which arises from the specific provisions of the. Constitution itself, is nowhere more fully illustrated than- in the series of decisions under the Federal habeas *168corpus statute (§ 753, Rev. Stat.), in some of which cases persons in vthe custody of state officers for alleged crimes against the State have been taken from that custody and discharged by a Federal court or judge, because the imprisonment was adjudged to be in violation of the Federal Constitution. The right to so discharge has not been doubted by this court, and it has never been supposed there was any suit against the State by reason of serving the writ upon one of the officers of the State in whose custody the person was found. In some of tihe cases the writ has been refused as matter of discretion, but in others it has been granted, while the power has been fully recognized in all. Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241; In re Loney, 134 U. S. 372; In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1; Baker v. Grice, 169 U. S. 284; Ohio v. Thomas, 173 U. S. 276; Minnesota v. Brundage, 180 U. S. 499, 502; Reid v. Jones, 187 U. S. 153; United States v. Lewis, 200 U. S. 1; In re Lincoln, 202 U. S. 178; Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179.

It is somewhat difficult to appreciate the distinction which, while admitting that the taking of such a person, from the. custody of the State by virtue of service of the writ on the state officer in whose custody he is found, is not a suit against the State, and yet service of a writ on the Attorney General to prevent his enforcing an unconstitutional enactment of a' state legislature is a suit against the State.

There is nothing in the case before us that ought properly to breed hostility to the customary operation of Federal courts Of justice in cases of this character.

The rule to show cause is discharged and the petition for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari is dismissed.

So ordered.

Mr. Justice Harlan,

dissenting.

Although the history of this litigation is set forth in the opinion of the court, I deem it appropriate to restate the principal facts of the case in direct connection with my examination of the question upon which the decision turns. *169That question is, whether the suit in the Circuit Court of the United States was, as to the relief sought against the Attorney General of Minnesota, forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, declaring that “the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted • against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State.” That examination, I may say at the outset, is entered upon with no little embarrassment, in view of the fact that the views expressed by me are not shared by. my brethren. I may also frankly admit embarrassment arising from certain views stated in dissenting opinions heretofore delivered by me which did not, at the time, meet the approval of my brethren, and which I do not now myself entertain. What I shall say in this opinion will be in substantial accord with what the court has heretofore decided, while the opinion of the court departs, as I think, from principles previously announced by it upon full consideration. I propose to adhere to former decisions of the court, whatever may have been once my opinion as to certain aspects of this general question.

The plaintiffs in the suit referred to, Perkins and Shepard, were shareholders of the Northern Pacific Railway Com'pany and citizens; respectively, of Iowa and Minnesota. The defendants were the railway company, Edward T. Young, Attorney General of Minnesota, the several members of the State Railroad and Warehouse Commission, and certain persons who were shippers of freight over the lines of that railway.

The general object of the suit was to prevent compliance with the provisions of certain acts of the Minnesota legislature and certain .orders of the State Railroad and Warehouse Commission, indicating the rates which the State permits to be charged for the transportation of passengers and commodities upon railroads within its limits; also, to prevent shippers from bringing actions against the railway company to enforce those acts and orders.

*170The bill, among other things, prayed that Edward T. Young, “as Attorney General of the State of Minnesota,” and the members of the State Railroad and Warehouse Commission (naming them) be enjoined from all attempts to compel the railway company to put in force the rates or any of them prescribed by said orders, and “from taking any action, step or proceeding against said Railway Company, or any of its officers, directors, agents or employés, to enforce any penalties or remedies for the violation by said Railway Company of said orders or either of them;” and that said Young, “as Attorney General,” be enjoined from taking any action, step or proceeding against the railway company, its officers, agents or em-ployés, to enforce the penalties and remedies specified in those acts.

The court gave a temporary injunction as prayed for'. The Attorney General of Minnesota appeared specially and, without submitting to or acknowledging the jurisdiction' of the court, moved to dismiss the suit' as to him, upon the ground that the State had not consented to be sued, and also because the bill was exhibited against him “as, and only as, the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota,” to restrain him, by injunction, from exercising the discretion vested in him to commence appropriate actions," on behalf of the State, to enforce or to test the validity of its laws. He directly raised the' question that the suit as to him, in his official capacity, was one against the State, in violation of the Eleventh Amendment.

In response to an order to show cause why the injunction asked for should not be granted the Attorney General also appeared specially and urged like objections to the suit'against him in the Circuit Court.

After hearing the parties the court made an order, September' 23, 1907, whereby the railway company, its officers, directors, agents, servants and employés, were enjoined until thé further order of the court from publishing, adopting or putting into effect the tariffs, rates or charges specified in the *171act of April 18, 1907. The court likewise enjoined the defendant Young, “as Attorney General of the State of Minnesota,” from "taking or instituting any action, suit, step or proceeding to enforce the penalties and remedies specified in said acts or either thereof, or to compel obedience to said act or compliance therewith or any part thereof.” A like injunction was granted against the defendant shippers.

On the next day, September 24, 1907, the State of Minnesota, “on the relation of Edward T. Young, Attorney General,” commenced an action in one of its own courts against the Northern Pacific Railway Company — the only relief sought being a mandamus ordering the company to adopt, publish, keep for public inspection, and put into effect, as the rates and charges to be maintained for the transportation of freight between stations in Minnesota, those named and specified in what is known as chapter 232 of the Session Laws of Minnesota for 1907. That was the act which it was the object of the Perkins-Shepard suit in the Federal court to strike down and nullify. An alternative writ of mandamus, such as the State asked, was issued by the state court.

The institution, in the state court, by the State, on the relation of its Attorney General, of the mandamus proceeding against the railway company having been brought to the attention of the Federal Circuit Court, a rule was issued against the defendant Young to show cause why he should not be punished as for contempt. Answering that rule, he alleged, among other’ things, that the mandamus proceeding was brought by and on behalf of the State,, through him as its Attorney General; that in every way possible he had objected to such jurisdiction on the ground that the action Was commenced against him solely as the Attorney General for Minnesota in order to prevent him from instituting in the proper courts civil actions for and in the name of the State to enforce or test the validity of its laws; that there is no other action or proceeding pending or contemplated by this defendant against said railway company, except said proceedings in mandamus *172hereinbefore referred to. ' Defendant expressly disclaimed any intention, to treat this court with disrespect in the commencement of the proceedings referred to, “but believing that the decision of this, court in this action, holding that it had jurisdiction to enjoin this defendant, as such Attorney General, from performing his discretionary official duties, was in conflict with the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, as the same has been interpreted and applied by the United States Supreme Court, defendant believed it to be his duty as such Attorney General to commence said mandamus proceedings for and in behalf of the-State, and it was in this belief that said proceedings were commenced solely for the purpose of enforcing the said law of the State of Minnesota.”

The rule was heard, and the Attorney General was held to be in contempt, the order of the Federal court being: “Ordered further, that said Edward T. Young forthwith dismiss or cause to be dismissed the suit of The State of Minnesota on the Relation of Edward T. Young, Attorney General, Plaintiff, v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, Defendant, heretofore instituted by him in the District Court of the County of Ramsey, Second Judicial District, State of Minnesota. Ordered further, that for'his said contempt said Edward T. Young be fined the sum of one hundred dollars and stand committed in the custody of the Marshal of this court until'the same be paid, and until he purge himself of his contempt by dismissing or causing to be dismissed said suit last herein mentioned.”

The present proceeding was commenced by an original application by Young to this court for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner, in his application, proceeds upon the-.ground that he is held in custody in violation of the Constitution of the United States. The petition set out all the steps taken in the suit in the Federal court, alleging, among other things:“That your petitioner’s office as Attorney General of the State of Minnesota is established and provided for by the constitution of the said State, section 1 of Article V thereof *173providing as follows, to wit: ‘The Executive Department.shall consist of a Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer and Attorney General, who shall be chosen by the electors of the State.’ That neither by statute nor otherwise is your petitioner charged with any special duty of a ministerial character in the doing or not doing of which said complainants in the said bill of complaint or the said Northern Pacific Railway Company had any. legal right, and that whatever duties your petitioner had or has with respect to the several matters complained of in the said bill of complaint, are of an executive and discretionary nature. That in no case could your petitioner, even though it was his intention so to do, which it was not, deprive the said complainants or the said Northern Pacific Railway Company, or either of them, of any property, nor could he trespass upon their rights in any particular, and that all he could do as Attorney General as aforesaid and all that it was his duty to do in that capacity, and all that he intended to do or would do, was to commence formal judicial proceedings in the appropriate court of Minnesota against the said Northern Pacific Railway Company, its officers, agents and employés, to compel the said company, its agents and servants, to adopt and put in force the schedule of freight rates, tariffs and charges prescribed by said chapter 232, Laws 1907, of the State of Minnesota.” He renewed the objection that the suit instituted by Perkins and Shepard, in so far as the same is against him, was a suit against the State to prevent his commencing the proposed action in the name of the State, and was in restraint of the State itself., “and that the said suit is one against the said State in violation of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that therefore the same is and was, so far as your petitioner is concerned, beyond the jurisdiction of the. said Circuit ■ Court,” etc.

■This statement will sufficiently indicate the nature of the question to be now examined upon its merits,

Let it be observed that the suit instituted by Perkins and *174Shepard in the Circuit Court of the United States'was, as to the defendant Young, one against him as, and only became he was, Attorney General of Minnesota. No. relief was sought against him individually but only in his capacity as Attorney General! And the manifest, indeed the avowed and admitted, object of seeking such relief was to tie the hands of the State so that it could not in any manner or by any mode of proceeding, in its oym courts, test the validity of the statutes and orders in question. It would therefore seem clear that within the true meaning of the Eleventh Amendment the suit brought in the Federal court was one, in legal effect, against the State— as much so as if the State had been formally named on the record as a party — and therefore it was a suit to which, under the Amendment, so far as the State or its Attorney General was concerned, the judicial power of the United States did not and could not' extend. If this proposition be sound it will follow — indeed, it is conceded that if, so far as relief is sought against the Attorney General of Minnesota, this be a suit against the State — then the order of the Federal court enjoining that officer from taking any action, suit, step or proceeding to compel the railway company to obey the Minnesota statute was beyond the jurisdiction of that court and wholly void; in which, case, that officer was at liberty to proceed in the discharge of his official duties as defined by the laws of the State, and the order adjudging him to be in contempt for bringing the mandamus proceeding in. the- state court was a nullity.

The fact that the Federal Circuit Court had, prior , to the institution of the mandamus suit in the state court, preliminarily (but not finally)1 held the statutes of Minnesota and the orders of its Railroad and Warehouse Commission in question to be in violation of the Constitution .of the United States, was no reason why that court should have laid violent hands upon the Attorney General of-Minnesota and by its orders have deprived the State of the services of its constitutional law officer in its own courts. Yet that is what was done by *175the Federal Circuit Court; for, the intangible thing, called' a State, however extensive its powers, can never appear or be represented or known in any court in a litigated case, except by and through its officers. When, therefore, the Federal court forbade the defendant Young, as Attorney General of Minnesota, from taking any action, suit, step or proceeding whatever looking to the enforcement of the statutes in question, it said in effect to the State of Minnesota: “It is true that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to its people, and it is true that under the Constitution the judicial power of the United States dobs not extend to any suit brought against a State by a citizen of another State or by a citizen or subject of a foreign State, yet the Federal court adjudges that you, the State, although a sovereign for many important governmental purposes, shall not appear in your own courts, by your law officer, with the view of enforcing, or even for determining the validity of the state enactments which the Federal court has, upon a preliminary hearing, declared to be in violation of the Constitution of the United States.”

This principle, if firmly established, would work a radical change in our governmental system. It would inaugurate a new era in the American judicial system and in the relations of the National and state governments. It would enable the subordinate Federal courts to supervise and control the official action of the States as if they were “dependencies” or provinces. It would place the States of the Union in a condition of inferiority never dreamed of when 'the Constitution was adopted or when the Eleventh Amendment was made a part of the Supreme Law of the Land. I cannot suppose that the great men who framed the Constitution ever thought the time would come when a subordinate Federal court, having no power- to compel a State, in its corporate capacity, to appear before it as a litigant, would yet assume to deprive a State of the right to be represented in its own courts by its *176regular law officer. That is what the court below did, as to Minnesota, when it adjudged that the appearance of the defendant Young in the state court, as the Attorney General of. Minnesota, representing his State as its chief law officer, was a contempt of the authority of the Federal court, punishable by fine and. imprisonment. Too little consequence has been attached to the fact that the courts of the States are under an obligation equally strong with that resting upon the courts of the Union to respect and. enforce the provisions of the Federal Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, and to guard rights secured or guaranteed by that instrument. We must assume — a decent respect for the. States requires us to assume — that the state courts will enforce- every right sécured by the Constitution. If they fail to-do so, the party complaining has a clear remedy for the protection ofhis rights; for, he can come by writ of error, in an orderly, judicial way, from the highest court of the State to this tribunal for redress in respect of every right granted or secured by that instrument and denied by the state court. The state courts, it should be remembered, have jurisdiction concurrent with the courts of the United States of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or equity involving a prescribed amount, arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. 25 Stat. 434. And this court- Has said: "A state court of original jurisdiction, having the parties before it, may consistently with existing Federal legislation determine cases at law or- in equity arising under the Constitution or.laws of the United States pr involving rights dependent upon such Constitution or laws. Upon the state courts, equally with the cour-ts of the Union, rests the obligation to guard, enforce,'and protect every right granted or secured by the Constitution of -the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof, whenever those rights are involved in any suit or .proceeding before them; for the judges of the state courts are required to take an oath to support that Constitution, and "they are bound by it, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and .all treaties *177made under their authority, as the supreme law of the land, ‘anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.’ If they fail therein, and withhold or deny rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the party aggrieved may bring the case from the highest court of the State in which the question could be decided to this court for final and conclusive determination.” Robb v. Connolly, 111 U. S. 624, 637. So that an order of the Federal court preventing the State from having the services of its Attorney General in one of its own courts, except at the risk of his being fined and arrested, cannot be justified upon the ground that the question of constitutional law, involved in the enforcement of the statutes in question, was beyond the competency of a state < court to consider and determine, primarily, as between the parties before it in a suit brought by the State itself.

At the argument of this case counsel for the railway company insisted that the provisions of the act in question were so drastic that they could be enforced by the State in its own courts with such persistency and in such a manner as, in a very brief period, to have the railway officers and agents all in jail, the business of the company destroyed and its property confiscated by heavy and successive penalties, before a final judicial decision as to the constitutionality of the act could be obtained. I infer from some language in the court’s opinion that these apprehensions are shared by some of my brethren. And this supposed danger to the railway company and its shareholders seems to have been the basis of the action of the Federal Circuit Court when, by its order directed against the Attorney General of Minnesota, it practically excluded the State from its own counts in respect of the issues here involved But really no such question as to the state statute is here in volved or need be now considered; for it cannot possibly arise on the hearing of the present application of that officer for discharge on habeas corpus. The only question now before this court is whether the suit by Perkins and Shepard in the Federal *178court was not, upon its face, as to the relief sought against the Attorney General of Minnesota, a suit against the State. Stated in another form, the question is whether that court may, by operating upon that officer in his official capacity, by means of fine and imprisonment, prevent the-State from being represented by its law officer in one- of its own courts? If the Federal court could not thus put manacles upon the State so as to prevent it from being represented by its Attorney General in its own court and from having the state court pass upon the validity of the state enactment in question in the Perkins-Shepard suit, that is an end to this habeas corpus proceeding, and the Attorney General of Minnesota should be - discharged by order of this court from custody.

It is to be observed that when the State was in effect prohibited by the order of the Federal court from appearing in its own courts, there was no danger, absolutely none whatever, from anything that the Attorney General had ever done or proposed to do, that the property of the railway company would be confiscated and its officers and agents imprisoned, beyond the power of that company to stay any wrong done by bringing to this court, in regular order, any final judgment of the state court, in the mandamus suit, which may have been in derogation of a Federal right. When the Attorney General instituted the mandamus proceeding in the state court against the railway company there was in force, it must not be forgotten, an order of' injunction by the Federal court which prevented that company from obeying the state law. There was consequently no danger from that direction.. Besides, the mandamus proceeding was not instituted for the recovery of any of the penalties prescribed by the state law, and therefore no judgment in that case could operate directly upon the property of the railway company or upon the persons of its officers or agents. The Attorney General in his response to the rule against him assured the Federal court that he did not contemplate any proceeding whatever against the railway company except the one in mandamus. Suppose the *179mandamus case had been finally decided in the state court, the way was open for the railway company to preserve any question it made as to its rights under the Constitution, and, in the event of a decision adverse to it in that court, at once to carry the case to the highest court of Minnesota and thence by a writ of error bring it to this court. That course would have served to determine every question of constitutional law raised by the suit in the Federal court in an orderly way without trampling upon the State, and without interfering, in the meantime, with the operation of the railway property .in the accustomed way. Instead of adopting that course — so manifestly consistent with the dignity and authority of both the Federal and state judicial tribunals — the Federal court practically closed the state courts against the State itself when it adjudged that the Attorney General, without regard to the wishes of the Governor of Minnesota, and without reference to his duties as prescribed by the laws of that State, should stand in the custody of the Marshal, unless he dismissed the mandamus suit. If the Federal court could thus prohibit the law officer of the State from representing it in a suit brought in the state court, why might not the bill in the Federal court be so amended that that court could reach all the district attorneys in Minnesota and forbid them from bringing to the attention of grand juries and the state courts violations of the state act by the railway company? And if a grand jury was about to inquire into the acts of the railway company in respect of the matter of its rates, why may not the Federal court, proceeding upon the same grounds on which it has moved against the Attorney General, enjoin the finding or returning of indictments against the lailway company? If an indictment was returned against the railway company, and was about to be tried by a petit jury, why could not the Federal court, upon the principles now announced, forbid the jury to proceed against the railway company, and if it did, punish every petit juryman as for contempt of court? Indeed, why may it not lay its hands on the Governor of the State and *180forbid him from appealing to the courts of Minnesota in the name of the State to test the validity of the act in question? And why may not the Federal court lay its hands even upon the judge of the state court itsélf, whenever it proceeds against the railway company under the state law?

The subject matter of these questions has evidently been considered by this court, and the startling consequences that would result from an affirmative answer, to them have not been overlooked; for, in its opinion, I find these observations: “It is proper to add that the right to enjoin an individual, even though a state official, from commencing suits under circumstances already stated, does not include the power to restrain a court from acting in any case brought before it, either of a civil or criminal nature, nor does it include power to prevent any investigation or action by a grand jury. The latter body is part of the machinery of a criminal court, and an injunction against a state court would be a violation of the whole scheme of our government. If an injunction against an individual is disobeyed, and he commences proceedings before a grand jury or in a court, such disobedience, is personal only, and the court or jury can proceed without incurring any penalty on that account. The difference between the power to enjoin an individual from doing certain things, and the power to enjoin courts from proceeding in their own way to exercise jurisdiction is plain, and no power to do the latter exists because of a power to do the former.” If an order of the Federal 'court forbidding a state court or its grand jury from attempting to enforce a state enactment would be “a violation of the-whole scheme of our government,” it is difficult to perceive why an order of that court, forbidding the chief law officer and all the district attorneys of a State to represent it in the courts, in a particular case, and practically, in that way, closing the doors of the state court against the State, would not also be inconsistent with the whole scheme of our government, and, therefore, beyond the power of the court to make.

*181Whether the Minnesota statutes are or are not violative of the Constitution'is not. as already suggested, a question in this habeas corpus proceeding. I do not, therefore, stop to consider whether those statutes are repugnant to the Constitution upon the' ground that by their necessary operation, when enforced, they will prevent the railway company from contesting their validity, or upon the ground that they are confiscatory and therefore obnoxious to the requirement of due process of law. While the argument at the bar in support of each of these propositions was confessedly of great force and persuasiveness, those points need not be now examined. I express no opinion about them. Their soundness may, how-éVer, be conceded for the purposes of this discussion. Indeed, it may be assumed for the purposes of this discussion that these state enactments are harsh and intemperate and, in some of their features, invalid. But those questions are wholly apart from the present proceeding. If we now consider them we must go out of our way in order to do go’. We have no evidence in this proceeding, as to the effect which the statutes, if enforced, would have upon the value either of the railway property or of the bonds or stocks of the railway company. The question of their validity has not been finally decided by the Circuit Court, and we have not before us even the evidence upon which its preliminary injunction was based. The essential and only question now before us or that need be decided is whether an order by the Federal court which prevents the State from being represented in its own courts, by its chief law officer, upon an issue involving .the constitutional validity of certain state enactments, does not piake a suit against the State within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment. If it be a suit of that kind, then, it is conceded, the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to fine and imprisón the petitioner and he must be- discharged, whatever pur views may be as to the validity of those state enactments.! This must necessarily be so unless the Amendment has less force .and a more restricted meaning now than it had at the time of its adop*182tion, and unless a suit against the Attorney General of a State, 1 in his official capacity, is not one against a State under the Eleventh Amendment when it's determination depends upon . a question of constitutional power or right under the Fourteenth Amendment. In that view I cannot concur. In my opinion the Eleventh Amendment has not been modified in the slightest degree as to its scope or meaning by the Fourteenth Amendment, and a suit which, in its essence, is one, against the State remains one of that character and is forbidden even when brought to strike dcwn a state statute al- ' leged to be in violation of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbidding the deprivation by a State of life, liberty or property without d.ue process of law. If a suit be commenced •in a state court, and involves a right secured by the Federal Constitution, the way is open under our incomparable judicial system to protect that right, first, by the judgment of the state court, and • ultimately by the judgment of this court, upon writ of error. But such right cannot be protected by means of a áuit which, at the outset, is, directly or in legal effect, one against the State whose action is alleged to be illegal. That mode of redress is absolutely forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment and cannot be made legal by mere construction, or by any consideration of the consequences that'may follow from the operation of the statute. Parties cannot, in any case, obtain redress by a suit against the State. Such has been the uniform ruling in this court, and it is most unfortunate that it is now. declared to be competent for a Federal Circuit Court, by exerting its authority over the chief law officer of the State, without the consent of the State, to exclude the State, in its sovereign i capacity, from its own courts when seeking to have the-ruling of those courts as to its powers under its own ■ statutes. Surely, the right of. a ' State to invoke the jurisdiction of its own courts is not less • than the right of individuals to invoke the jurisdiction of a Federal court. The preservation of the dignity and sovereignty of the States, within the limits of their constitutional powers, *183is of the last importance, and vital to the preservation of our system of government. The courts should not permit themselves to be driven by the hardships, real or supposed, of particular cases to accomplish results, even if they be just results, in a mode forbidden by the fundamental law. The country should never be allowed to think that the Constitution can, in any case, be evaded or amended by mere judicial interpretation, or that its behests may be nullified by an ingenious construction of its provisions.

The importance of the question under consideration is a sufficient justification for such a reference to the authorities as will indicate the precise grounds on which this court has oftentimes proceeded when determining what is and what is not a suit against a State within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment. All the cases agree in declaring the incapacity of a Federal court to éxercise jurisdiction over a State as a party. But assaults upon the Eleventh Amendment have oftenest been made in cases in which the effort has been, without making the State a formal party, to control the acts of its officers and agents, by such orders directed to them as will accomplish, by' indirection, the same results that could be accomplished by a suit directly against the State, if such a suit were possible. It will be well to look at some of the principal adjudged cases.

The general question was examined in Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R. R. Co., 109 U. S. 446-451, where the court said that it was conceded in all the cases, and “may be accepted as a point of departure unquestioned, that neither a State nor the United States can be sued as defendant in any court in this country without their consent, except in the limited class of cases in which a State may be made a party in the Supreme Court, of the United States by virtue of the original jurisdiction conferred on this court by the Constitution.” The court has not in any case departed from this constitutional principle. In Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1, 9, it said that “this immunity of a State from suit is *184absolute and unqualified, and the constitutional provision securing it is not to be so construed as to place the Staife within the reach of the process of the court. Accordingly, it is equally well settled that a suit against the officers of 'a State, to compel them to do the acts which constitute a performance by it of its contracts; is, in effect, a suit against the State itself.” In Cunningham v. Macon & Brunswick R. R. Co., just cited, the distinction was drawn between Ú suit in which the State is' the real party in interest, although not technically a party on the record, and one in which “ an individual is sued in tort for some act injurious to another in regard to person or property, to which his defense is that he has acted under the orders of the government;” in which last case, the court observed, the defendant “ is not sued as, or because, he is, the officer of the government, but as an individual, and the court is not ousted of jurisdiction because he asserts authority as such officer.” L$t it not be forgotten that the defendant Young was sued, not as an individual or because he had any personal interest' in these matters, but as, and■ solely because he is, an officer of the State charged with the performancfe of certain public duties.

In Hagood v. Southern, 117 U. S. 52, 67, 68, which involved the validity of certain scrip alleged to have been issued by the State of" South Carolina, it appeared that the State having denied its obligation to pay, the plaintiff sought relief by simply suing certain state officers, as such, without making the State a formal party» The court said;' “These "suits are accurately described as bills for the specific performance of a contract between the complainants and the State of South Carolina, who are the only parties to it. But to these bills the State is not in name made a party defendant,' though leave is given to it to become such, if it chooses; and, except with that consent, it could not be brought before the court and be made to appear and defend. And yet it is the actual party to the alleged contract the performance of which is decreed, the one required to perform the decree, and the only *185party by whom it can be performed. Though not nominally a party to the record, it is the real and only party in interest, the nominal defendants being the. officers and agent® of the State, having no personal interest in the subject-matter of the suit, and defending only as representing the State. And the things required by the decrees to be done and performed by them, .are the very things, which when done and performed, constitute a performance of the alleged contract by the State. The State is not- .only the real party to the controversy, but the real party against which relief is sought by the suit, and the suit is, therefore, substantially within the prohibition of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which declares that ‘the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State.’ ” Again: “If this case is not within the class of those forbidden by the constitutional guaranty to the States of immunity from suits in Federal tribunals, it is difficult to conceive the frame of one which would be. If the State is named as a defendant, it can only'be reached either by mesne or final process through its officers and agents, and a judgment against it could neither be obtained nor enforced, except as the public ■ conduct and government of the ideal political body called a State could be reached .and affected through its official representatives. A judgment against these latter, in their official and representative capacity, commanding them to perform official functions on behalf of the State according to the dictates and decrees of the court, is, if anything can be, a judicial proceeding against the State itself. If not, it may well be asked, what would constitute such a proceeding? In the present cases the decrees were not only against the defendants in their official capacity, but, that there might be no mistake as to the nature and extent of the duty to be performed, also against their successors in office.” Is it to be said that an order requiring the Attorney General of a *186State to perform certain official functions on behalf of the State is a suit against the State, while an order forbidding him, as Attorney General, not to perform an official function on behalf of the State is not a suit against the State?

The leading case upon the general subject, and one very-similar in many important particulars to the present one, is In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 496, 497, 505. The facts in that case Were briefly these: The legislature of Virginia, in 1887, passed an act which .holders of sundry bonds and tax-receivable coupons of that Commonwealth alleged to be in violation of their rights under the Constitution of the United States. They instituted a suit in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States against the Attorney General and Auditor of Virginia, and against the Treasurers and Commonwealth attorneys of counties, cities and towns in Virginia, the rcr 4 asked being a decree enjoining and restraining the said state officers, and each of them, from bringing or commencing any suit provided for by the above act of 1887, or from doing anything to put that act into operation. The Circuit Court entered an order, enjoining the Attorney General of Virginia and each and all the state officers named “from bringing or commencing any suit against any person who has tendered the State of Virginia tax-receivable coupons in payment of taxes due to said State, as provided for and directed by the act of the legislature of Virginia, approved May 12, 1887.” Subsequently the Circuit Court of the United States- was informed that the Attorney General of Virginia had disobeyed its order of injunction. Thereupon that officer was ruled to show cause why he should not be fined and imprisoned. He responded to the rule, admitting that after being served with the injunction he had instituted a suit, in the state Circuit Court, against the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company to recover taxes due the State, and alleging “that he instituted the said suit because he was thereunto required by the act of the General Assembly of Virginia aforesaid, and because he believed this court had no jurisdiction whatever to award the injunction *187violated.” He disclaimed any intention to treat the court with disrespect, and stated that he had been actuated alone by the desire to have the law properly administered. He was, nevertheless, adjudged guilty of contempt, was required forthwith to dismiss the suit he had brought, was fined $500 for contempt of court, and committed to the custody of the marshal until the fine was paid, and until he purged himself of his contempt by dismissing the suit in the state court. The Attorney General then applied directly to this court for a writ of 'habeas corpus, which was granted, and upon hearing he was released by this court from custody. The order for his discharge recited that the suit in which the injunctions were granted was "in substance and in law a suit against the State of Virginia,” and “within the prohibition of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution;” that it was one “to which the judicial power of the United States does not extend;” that the Circuit Court was without jurisdiction to entertain it; that all its proceedings in the exercise of jurisdiction were null and void; that.it had no authority or power to adjudge the Attorney General in contempt; and that his imprisonment was without authority of law. In' the opinion in the Ayers case the court said: “ It follows, therefore, in the present case, that the personal act of the petitioners sought to be restrained by the order of the Circuit Court, reduced to the mere bringing of an action in the name of and for the State against taxpayers, who, although they may have tendered tax-receivable coupons, are charged as delinquents, cannot be alleged against them as an individual act in violation of any legal or contract rights of such taxpayers.” Again: “The relief sought is against.the defendants, not in their individual, but in their representative capacity as officers of the State of Virginia. The acts sought to be restrained are the bringing of suits by the State of Virginia in its own name and for its own use. If the State had been made a defendant to this bill by name, charged according to the allegations it now contains — supposing that such a suit could be maintained — it would have been subject *188to the jurisdiction of the court by process served upon its Governor and Attorney General, according to the precedents in such cases. New Jersey v. New York, 5 Pet. 284, 288, 290; Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, 96, 97; Rule 5 of 1884, 108 U. S. 574. If a decree could have been rendered enjoining the State from bringing suits against its taxpayers, it would have operated upon the State only through the officers who by law were required to represent it in bringing such suits, viz., the present defendants, its Attorney General, and the Commonwealth’s attorneys for the several counties. For a breach of such an injunction, these officers would be amenable to the court as proceeding in contempt of its authority, and would be liable to punishment thereof by attachment and imprisonment. The nature of the case, as supposed, is identical with that of the case as actually presented in the bill, with the single exception that the State is not named as a defendant. How else can the State be forbidden by judicial process to bring actions in its name, except by constraining the conduct of its officers, its attorneys, and its agentsf And if all such officers, attorneys, and agents are personally subjected to the process of the court, so as to forbid their acting in its behalf, how can it be said that the State itself is not subjected to the jurisdiction of the court as an actual and real defendant?” Further: “The very object and purpose of the Eleventh Amendment • were to prevent the indignity of subjecting a State to the coercive process of judicial tribunals at the instance of private parties. It was thought' to be neither becoming nor convenient that the several States of the Union, invested with that large residuum of sovereignty which had not been delegated to the United States, should be summoned as defendants to answer the complaints of private persons, whether citizens of other States or aliens, or that the course of their public policy and the administration of their public affairs should be subject to and controlled by the members of judicial tribunals without their consent, and in favor of . individual interests. To secure the manifest purposes of the constitutional exemption guaran*189teed by the Eleventh Amendment requires that it should be interpreted, not literally and too narrowly, but fairly, and with such breadth and largeness as effectually to accomplish the substance of its purpose. In this spirit it must be held to cover, not only suits brought against a State by name, but those also against its officers, agents and representatives where the State, though not named as such, is nevertheless the only real party against which alone in fact the relief is asked, and against which the judgment or decree effectively operates. But this is not intended in any way to impinge upon the principle which justifies suits against individual defendants, who, under color of the authority of unconstitutional legislation by the State, are guilty of personal trespasses and wrongs, nor to forbid suits against officers in their official capacity either to arrest or direct their official action by injunction or mandamus, where such suits are authorized by law, and the act to he done or omitted is purely ministerial, in the performance or omission of which the plaintiff has a legal interest.”

It is said that the Ayers case is not applicable here, because the orders made by the Federal Circuit Court had for their object to compel Virginia to perform its contract with bondholders, which is not this case. But that difference between the Ayers case and this case cannot affect the principle in-' volved. The proceeding against the Attorney General of Virginia had for its object to compel, by indirection, the performance of the contract which that Commonwealth -was alleged to have made with bondholders — such performance, on the part of the State, to be effected by means of orders in a Federal Circuit Court directly controlling the official action of that officer. The proceeding in the Perkins-Shepard suit against the Attorney General of Minnesota had for its object, by means of orders in a Federal Circuit Court, directed to that officer, to control the action of that State in reference to the enforcement of certain statutes by judicial proceedings commenced in its own courts. The relief sought in each case was to control the State hy controlling the conduct of its law-officer, *190against its will. I cannot conceive how the proceeding against the Attorney General of Virginia could be deemed a suit against that State, and yet the proceeding against the Attorney General of Minnesota is not to be deemed a suit against Minnesota, when the object and effect of the latter proceeding was, beyond all question, to shut that State entirely out of its own courts, and prevent it' through its law-officer from invoking their jurisdiction in a special matter of public concern, involving official duty, about which the State desired to know the views of its own judiciary. In my opinion the decision in the Ayers case determines this case for the petitioner.

More directly in point, perhaps, for the petitioner Young is the case of Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516, 528, 529, 530. That suit was brought by the receivers of a railroad company against the Governor and Attorney General of Alabama. Its object was to prevent the enforcement of the provisions of an Alabama statute prescribing the maximum rates of toll to be charged on a certain bridge across the Tennessee River. The statute imposed a penalty for each time that the owners, lessees or operators of the bridge demanded or received any higher rate of toll than was prescribed by it. The relief asked was an injunction prohibiting the Governor and Attorney General of the State and all other persons from instituting any proceeding against the complainants, or either of them, to enforce the statute. An injunction, as prayed for, was granted. In the progress of the cause the solicitor of the district in which the case was ponding was made a defendant and the injunction was extended to him. By amended pleadings it was made to appear that the tollgate keepers at the public crossing of the bridge were indicted for collecting tolls in violation of the statute. In the progress of the cause the plaintiffs dismissed the case as to the State, and the cause was discontinued as to the Governor. But the case was heard upon the motion to dismiss the bill upón the ground that the suit was one against the State in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

*191After stating the principles settled in the Ayers case and in other cases this court said: “ If these principles be applied in the present case there is no escape from the conclusion that, although the State of Alabama was dismissed as a party defendant, this suit against its officers is really one against the State. As a State can act only by its officers, an order restraining those officers from taking any steps, by means of judicial proceedings, in execution of the statute of February 9, 1895, is one which restrains the State itself, and the suit is consequently as much against the State as if the State were named as a party_ defendant on the record. If the individual defendants held possession or were about to take possession of, or to commit any trespass upon, any property belonging to or under the control of the plaintiffs, in violation of the latter’s constitutional rights, they could not resist the judicial determination, in a suit against them, of the question of the right to such .possession by-simply asserting that they held or were entitled to hold the property in their capacity as officers of the State. In the case supposed, they would be compelled to make good the State’s claim to the property, arid could not shield themselves. against suit because of their official character. Tindal v. Wesley, 167 U. S. 204, 222. No such cáse is before us.” Again, in the same case: “ It is to be observed that neither the Attorney General of Alabama nor the Solicitor of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State appear to have been charged by law with any special duty in connection with the act of Feb- . ruary 9, 1895. In support of the contention that the present suit is not one against the State, reference was made by counsel to several cases, among which were Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270; Allen v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 114 U. S. 311; Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1; In re Tyler; 149 U. S. 164; Reagan v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, 388; Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58, and Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466. Upon examination it will be found that the defendants in each of those cases were officers of the State, especially charged with the execution of a state enactment *192alleged to be unconstitutional, but under the authority of which, it was averred, they were committing or were about to commit some specific wrong or trespass to the injury of the plaintiff’s rights. There is a wide difference between a suit against individuals, holding official positions under a State, to prevent them, under the sanction of an .unconstitutional statute, from committing by some positive act a wrong or trespass, and a suit against officers of a State merely to test the constitutionality of a state statute, in the enforcement of which those officers will act only by formal judicial proceedings in the courts of the State. In the present case, as we have said, neither of the state officers named held any special relation to the particular statute alleged to be unconstitutional. They were not expressly directed to see to its enforcement. If, because they were law officers of the State, a case could be made for the purpose of testing the constitutionality of the statute, by an injunction suit brought against them, then the constitutionality of every act passed by the legislature could be tested by a suit against the Governor and Attorney General, based upon the theory that the former as the executive of the State was, in a general-sense, charged with the execution of all its laws, and the latter, as Attorney General, might represent the State in litigation involving the enforcement of its statutes. That would be a very convenient way for .obtaining a' speedy judicial determination' of questions of constitutional law which may be raised by individuals, but it is a-mode which cannot be applied to the.. States of the Union consistently with the fundamental principle that they cannot, without their assent, be brought into any court at the suit of private persons. If their officers commit acts of trespass or wrong to the citizen, they may be individually proceeded against for such trespasses or wrong. Under the view we take of the question, the citizen is not without effective remedy, when proceeded against under a legislative enactment void' for repugnancy to the supreme law of the land; for, whatever the form of proceeding against him, he can make his defense upon the *193ground' that the statute is unconstitutional and void. And that question can be ultimately brought to this court for final determination.” I am unable to distinguish that case, in principle, from the one now before us. The Fitts case is not overruled, but is, I fear, frittered away or put out of sight by unwarranted distinctions.

Two cases in this court are much relied on to support the proposition that the Perkins-Shepard suit in the Circuit Court is not a suit against the State. I refer to Reagan v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 154 U. S. 362, and Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 472. But each of those cases differs in material respects from the one instituted by Perkins and Shepard in the court below. In the Reagan case it appears that the very act, under which the railroad commission proceeded; authorized the railroad company, or any interested party, if dissatisfied with the action of the commission in establishing rates, to bring suit against that commission in any court, in a named county, with right to appeal to a higher court. This court when combatting the suggestion that only the state court had jurisdiction to proceed against the commission, and give relief in respect of the rates it established, said: “ It may be laid down as a general proposition that, whenever a citizen of a State can go into the courts of a State to defend his property against the illegal acts of its officers, a citizen of another State may invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal courts to maintain a like defense. A State cannot tie up a citizen of another State, having property rights within its territory invaded by unauthorized acts of its own officers, to suits for redress in its own courts. Given a case where a suit can be maintained in the courts of the State to protect property rights, a citizen of another State may invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. ... It comes, therefore, within the very terms of the act. It cannot be doubted that a. State, like any other government, can waive exemption from suit.” The declaration of the court in the Reagan case, that that suit was not, within the true meaning of the Eleventh *194Amendment, to be regarded as a suit against the State, must therefore be taken in connéction with the declaration in the same case that the State haying consented that the commission might be sued in one of its own courts, in respect of the rates established by the statute, must be taken to have waived its immunity • from suit in the Circuit Court of the United States sitting in Texas. In Smyth v. Ames, above cited, which was a suit in a Circuit Court of the United States, involving the constitutional validity of certain rates established for railroads in Nebraska, it appeared that the statute expressly authorized any railroad company claiming that the rates were unreasonable to bring an action against the State before the Supreme Court in the name of the railroad company or companies bringing the same. Thus the State of Nebraska waived its immunity from suit,- and having authorized a suit against itself in one of its courts, in respect of the rates there in question, it could not, according to the decision in the Reagan case, deny its liability to like suit in a court of the United States. It is true that this court, in its opinion in Smyth v. Ames, did not lay any special stress on the fact that Nebraska, by the statute, agreed that it might be sued, but it took especial care in its extended statement of the case to bring out that fact. Its silence on that point is not extraordinary, in view of the fact, as appears from the opinion of this court, that the question whether that suit was to be deemed one against the State was not discussed at the bar by the Nebraska State Board. We there quoted from the' Reagan case these words: “Whenever a citizen of a State can go into the courts of. a State to defend his property against the illegal acts of its officers, a citizen of another State may invoke- the jurisdiction of the Federal courts to maintain a like defense. A State cannot tie up a citizen of another State, having property rights within its territory invaded by unauthorized acts of its own officers, to suits for redress in its own courts.” That the Reagan and Smyth cases did not go as far as is now claimed for them is macje clear by the later case of Fitts v. McGhee, already re*195ferred to, in which the doctrines of In re Ayers were reaffirmed and applied.

We may refer in this connection to Gunter v. Atlantic Coast Line, 200 U. S. 273, 291, in which case one of the points made was that the Circuit Court of the United States had no power to restrain the Attorney General of South Carolina and the counsel associated with him from prosecuting in the state courts actions authorized by the laws of the State, and hence that the court erred in awarding an injunction against said officers. This court said: “Support for the proposition is rested upon the terms of the' Eleventh Amendment and the provision^ of section 720 of the Revised Statutes, forbidding the granting of a writ by any court of the United States to stay proceedings in any court of a State, except in cases where such injunction may be authorized by any law relating to proceedings .in bankruptcy. The soundness of the doctrine relied upon is undoubted. In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443; Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516. The difficulty is that the doctrine is inapplicable to this case. Section 720 of the Revised Statutes was originally adopted in 1793, whilst the Eleventh Amendment was in process of formation in Congress for submission to the States, and long, therefore, before the ratification of 'that Amendment. The restrictions embodied in the section were, therefore, but a partial accomplishment of the more comprehensive result affectuated by the prohibitions of the Eleventh Amendment. Both the statute and the Amendment relate to the power of courts of the United States to deal, against the will and consent of a State, with controversies between it and individuals. None of the prohibitions, therefore, of the Amendment or of the statute relate to the power of a Federal court to administer relief in causes where jurisdiction as to a State and its officers has been acquired as a result of the voluntary action of the State in submitting its rights to judicial determination. To confound the two classes of cases is but to overlook the distinction which exists between the power of a court to deal with a subject over which it has *196jurisdiction and its want of authority to entertain a controversy as to which jurisdiction is not possessed.”

Counsel for the railway company placed some reliance oh Pennoyer v. McConnaughy, 140 U. S. 1, 18, in which the previous cases.on the general subject of suits against the States were classified.. That .case was a suit in equity against certain parties “who, under the constitution of Oregon, as Governor, Secretary of State, and Treasurer of that State, comprised the Board of Land Commissioners of that State, to restrain and enjoin them from selling and conveying a large amount of land in that State, to which the plaintiff asserted title.” That suit, in view of the nature of the relief asked, and of the relations of the defendants to the matters involved, was held not to be one against the State within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment. But after a review of the facts the court, as explanatory of the conclusion reached by it, took especial care to observe: “In this connection it must be borne in mind that this suit is not nominally against the Governor, Secretary of State, and Treasurer, as such officers, but against them collectively, as the board of land commissioners.” The present suit is, in terms, against Young “as Attorney General of Minnesota,” and the decree was sought against him; as such officer, not against him individually, or as a mere administrative officer charged with certain duties.

One of the cases cited in support of the décision now rendered is Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Missouri R. R. & Warehouse Commissioners, 183 U. S. 53, 58, 59. But although that particular suit was held not to be one against the State, the case, in respect of the principles announced by the court, is in harmony with the views I have expressed. For, the court there says: “Was the State the real party plaintiff? It was at an early day held by this court, construing the Eleventh Amendment, that in all cases where jurisdiction depends on the party, it is the party named in the record. Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738. But that technical construction has yielded to one more in' consonance with the *197spirit of the Amendment, and in In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, it was ruled upon full consideration that the Amendment covers not only suits against a State by name but those also against its officers, agents and representatives where the State, though not named as such, is nevertheless the only real party against which in fact the relief is asked, and against which the judgment or decree. effectively operates. And that construction of the Amendment has since been followed.” In the present case, the State, although not named on the record as a party, is the real party whose action it is sought to control.

There are other cases in this court in which the scope and meaning of the Eleventh Amendment Were under consideration, but they need not be cited, for they are well known. They are all cited in In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 500. “The vital principle in all such cases,” this court said in the Ayers case, “is that the defendants, though professing to act as officers of the State, are threatening a violation of the personal or property rights of the complainant, for which they are personally and individually liable,” or cases in which the-officer sued refused to perform a purely ministerial duty, about which he had no discretion and in the performance of which the plaintiff had a direct interest. The case before us is altogether different. The statutes in question did not impose upon the Attorney General of Minnesota any special duty to see. to their enforcement. In bringing the mandamus suit he acted under the general authority inhering in him as the chief law officer of his State. He could not become personally liable to the railway company simply because of his bringing the mandamus suit. The Attorney General stated that all he did, or contemplated doing, was to bring the mandamus suit. The mere bringing of such a suit could not be;'alleged against' him as ah individual in violation of any legal -right of the railway company or its shareholders. In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 496. The plaintiffs recognized this fact and hence did not proceed in their suit upon the ground that the defendant was. individually liable. They sued him only as Attorney General, *198and sought a decree against hinTin his official capacity, not otherwise.

Some reference has been made to Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241, and other cases, that affirm the authority of a Federal court, under existing statutes, to discharge upon habeas corpus from the custody of a state officer one who isiheld in violation of the Federal Constitution for an alleged crime against a State. Those cases arq not at all in point in the present discussion. Such a habeas corpus proceeding is ex parte, having for its object only .to inquire whether the applicant for the Writ is illegally restrained of his liberty. If he is, then the state officer holding him in custody is a trespasser, and cannot defend the wrong or tort committed by him, by pleading his official Character. The power in a Federal court to discharge a person from the custody of a trespasser may well exist, and yet the court has .no power in a suit before it, by an order directed against the Attorney General of a State, as such, to prevent the State from being represented by that officer, as a litigant in one of its own courts. The former cases, it may be argued, come within the decisions which hold that a suit- which only seeks to prevent or restrain a trespass upon • property or person by one who happens to be a state officer, but is proceeding in violation of the Constitution of the United States, is not a suit against a State within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment, but a suit against the trespasser or wrongdoer. But the authority of the Federal court to protect one against a trespass committed or about to be committed by a state officer in violation of the Constitution of the United States is very different from the power now asserted, and recognized by this court as existing, to shut out a sovereign State from its own courts by the device of forbidding its Attorney General, under the penalty of fine and imprisonment, from appearing in such courts in its behalf. The mere bringing of a suit on behalf of a State, by its Attorney General, cannot (this court has decided in the Ayers case) - make that officer a trespasser and individually liable to the *199party sued. To enjoin him from representing the State in such suit is therefore, for every practical or legal purpose, to enjoin the State itself. This court, in the Debs Case, 158 U. S. 564, 584, said: "Every government, entrusted, by the very terms of its being, with powers and duties to be exercised and discharged for the general welfare, has a right to apply to its own courts for any proper assistance in the exercise of the one and the discharge of the other, and it' is no sufficient answer to its appeal to' one of those courts that it has no pecuniary interest in the matter. The obligation which it is under to promote the interest of all, and to prevent the wrongdoing of one resulting in injury to the general welfare, is often of itself sufficient to give it a standing in court. This proposition in some of its relations has heretofore received the sanction of this court.” If there be one power that a State possesses, which ought to be deemed beyond the control, in any mode, of the National Government or of any of its courts, it is the power by judicial proceedings to appear in its own courts, by its law-officer or by attorneys, and seek the guidance of those courts in respect of matters of a justiciable nature. If the state court, by its judgment, in such a suit, should disregard the injunctions of the Federal Constitution, that judgment would be subject to review by this court upon writ of error or appeal.

It will bo well'now to look at the course of decisions in other Federal courts.

Attention is first directed to Arbuckle v. Blackburn, 113 Fed. Rep. 616, 622, which was a suit in equity,, one of the principal objects of which was to restrain the enforcement of an act .of the Ohio legislature relating to food products, particularly of a named coffee in' which the plaintiffs were interested. The Circuit Court of Appeals held that the bill was properly dismissed, saying, among other things: “What, then, is the object of the injunction sought in this, case? It is no more or less than to restrain the officer of the State from bringing prosecutions for violations of an act which said offi*200cer is expressly charged to enforce in the only way he is authorized to proceed — by bringing criminal prosecutions in the name of the State. This is virtually to enjoin the State from proceeding through its duly qualified and acting officers. If the food commissioner may be enjoined from instituting such prosecutions, why may not the prosecuting attorney, or any officer of the State charged with the execution of the criminal laws of the State? While the State may not be sued, if the bill can be sustained against its officers, it is as effectually prevented from proceeding to enforce its laws as it would be by an action directly against the State. This view of the case, in our judgment, is amply sustained by the cases above cited, and by the later case of Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516. In so far as. this action seeks an injunction against the respondent from proceeding to enforce by prosecution the provisions of the statutes of Ohio above cited, the courts of the United States are deprived of jurisdiction by the Eleventh Amendmént to the Constitution.”

-In Union Trust Co. v. Stearns, 119 Fed. Rep. 790, 791, 792, 795, the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Rhode Island had occasion to consider the scope of the Eleventh Amendment. The case related to a statute regulating the hours of labor of certain employés of street railways, and imposing a fine for. a violation of its provisions. The court upon an elaborate review of all the cases in this court dismissed the action. The defendants Stearns and Greenough were, respectively, the Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General of the State. They were not named in the act, nor charged with any special duty in connection therewith. The court said: “The purpose of the present bill, in substance and effect, is to enjoin the State of Rhode Island from the enforcement of a penal statute. Indictments under the act are brought in the name and on behalf of the State for the protection of the State. These defendants, the Attorney General and his assistant, merely represent the State in such proceedings. They are simply the officers and agents of the State. It is not as. *201individuals, but solely by virtue of their holding such offices, that they prefer and prosecute indictments in the name of the State. A State can only act or be proceeded against through its officers. If a decree could be entered against the State of Rhode Island enjoining prosecutions under this act, it could only operate against the State through enjoining these defendants. An order restraining the Attorney General and his assistant from the enforcement of this statute is an order restraining the State itself. The present suit, therefore, is as much against the State of Rhode Island as if the State itself were named a party defendant.” After referring to In re Ayers, and Fitts v. McGhee, and upon a review of the cases, the court proceeded: “The defendants Stearns and Greenough hold no special relation to the act of June 1, 1902. They are not specially charged with its execution. They are not thereby constituted a board or commission with administrative powers, nor are they as individuals, and apart from the official authority under which they act, threatening to seize the property of the complainant, or to commit any wrong or trespass against its personal or property rights. They have no other connection with this statute than the institution of formal judicial proceedings for its enforcement in the courts of the State in the name and behalf of the State. Upon reason and authority the present bill is a suit against the State of Rhode Island, within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”

In Morenci Copper Co. v. Freer, 127 Fed. Rep. 199, 205, which was an action in equity to restrain and inhibit the defendant, in his official capacity as Attorney General of West Virginia, from proceeding to institute an action in the state court for forfeiture of the charter of the plaintiff corporation for a failure to pay a license tax imposed by a state statute, and which statute was alleged to be in violation of the Federal Constitution, the Circuit Court reviewed the decisions of this court upon the question as to what were and what were not suits against the State. The Circuit Court held that it had no juris*202diction of the case, saying: “But it may be said, if the court holds that no remedy of this sort will lie in the Circuit Court of the United States to prevent this breach of a contract by the State of West Virginia by means of the machinery of a law violative of the Constitution of the United States, how are the rights of corporations to be preserved? The answer is that such alleged unconstitutionality is matter of defense to any suit brought for the forfeiture of complainant’s charter, and could be set up as an answer and defense to any bill brought for that purpose, and, if the highest court of the State ruled adversely to that contention, - appeal would lie to the Supreme Court of the United States. Or the case can be removed to the Circuit Court of the United States if it presents a case arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

A well-considered case is that of Western Union Tel. Co. v. Andrews, 154 Fed. Rep. 95, 107. In that case the telegraph company sought by bill, to enjoin the prosecuting attorneys of the various judicial circuits of Arkansas from instituting any proceeding, for penalties for its failure or refusal to comply with the provisions of an act of the legislature of Arkansas relating to foreign corporations doing business in that State and fixing fees, etc. The bill charged that the various prosecuting attorneys would, unless restrained, institute numerous actions for the recovery of the penalties prescribed by the act, which was no less than $1,000 for each alleged violation. The defense was, among other things, that the action was one against the State, and, therefore, prohibited by the Constitution. After a careful review of the adjudged cases in this court and in the subordinate Federal courts, the Circuit Court held the action to be one against the State, forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment, saying among other things: “The allegations in the bill show that this is an attempt to prevent the State of Arkansas, through its officers, who by' its laws are merely its attorneys, to represent it in all legal actions in its favor or in which it is interested, from instituting and prosecuting suits for the recovery of penalties incurred for alleged *203violation of its laws, actions which can only be instituted in the name of the State and for its use and benefit.”

Upon the fullest consideration and after a careful examination of the authorities, my mind has been brought to the conclusion that no case heretofore determined by this court requires us to hold that the Federal Circuit Court had authority to forbid the Attorney General of Minnesota from representing the State in the mandamus suit in the state court, or to adjudge that he was in contempt and liable to be fined and imprisoned simply because of his having, as Attorney General, brought that suit for the State in one of its courts. On the contrary, my conviction is very strong that, if regard be had to former utterances of this court, the suit of Perkins and Shepard in the Federal court, in respect of the relief sought therein against Young, in his official capacity, as Attorney General of Minnesota, is to be deemed — under the Ayers and .Fitts cases particularly' — a suit against the State of which the Circuit Court of the United States could not take cognizance without violating, the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution. Even if it were held that suits to restrain the instituting of actions directly to recover the prescribed penalties would not be suits against the State, it would not follow that we should go further and hold that a proceeding under which the State was, in effect, denied access, by its Attorney General, to its own courts,, would be consistent with the Eleventh Amendment. A different view means, as I 'think, that although the judicial power of the United States does not extend to any suit expressly brought against a State by a citizen of another State without its consent or to any suit the legal effect of which is to fie the hands of the State, although not formally named as a party, yet a Circuit Court of the United States, in a suit brought against the Attorney General of a State may, by orders directed specifically against that officer, control, entirely control, by indirection, the action of the State itself in judicial proceedings in its own courts involving the constitutional validity of its statutes. This court has heretofore held that *204that could not be done, and that such a result would, for most purposes, practically obliterate the Eleventh Amendment and place the States, in vital particulars, as absolutely under the control of the subordinate Federal courts, as if they were capable of being directly sued. I put the matter in this way, because to forbid the Attorney General of a State (under the penalty of being punished as for contempt) from representing his State in suits of a partiular kind, in its own courts, is to forbid the State itself from appearing and being heard in such suits. Neither the words nor the policy of the Eleventh Amendment will, under our former decisions, justify any order of a Federal court the necessary effect of which will be to exclude a State from its own courts. Such an order attended by such results cannot, I submit, be sustained consistently with the powers which the States, according to the uniform declarations of this court, possess under the Constitution. I am justified, by what this court has heretofore declared, in now saying that the men who framed the Constitution and who caused the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment would have been amazed by the suggestion that a State of the Union can be prevented by an order of a subordinate Federal court from being represented by its Attorney General in a suit brought by it in one of its own courts; and. that such an order would be inconsistent with the dignity of the States as involved in their constitutional immunity from the judicial process of the Federal courts (except in the limited cases in which they may constitutionally be made parties in this court) and would be attended by most pernicious results.

I dissent from the opinion and judgment.

Dissent.

*756ROGERS, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff has obtained an injunction restraining the defendants from prosecuting or taking any further proceedings in an action at law pending in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, in which they are plaintiffs and he is defendant. This suit was brought originally against George N. Gardiner, the defendants’ testator. After the institution of the suit Mr. Gardiner died, and the present defendants were appointed executors under his last will and testament, and both the action,at law which has been restrained and the present suit were revived in their names as parties in his place and stead.

The action at law was commenced on May 14, 1913, in the Supreme Court of New York,' but was removed into the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York on the ground of diversity of citizenship by Mr. Du Pont, defendant therein, who is a citizen of Delaware; Mr. Gardiner being at the time a citizen of New York. The action at law is brought upon a contract alleged to have been made between Gardiner and Du Pont whereby the latter promised to pay to the former, for services rendered and to be rendered in connection with .what is referred to as “the Equitable Building deal in the city of New York,” $100,000 in cash and $100,000 par valué of the common stock of a company incorporated or in process of incorporation for the purchase and carrying out of said deal. It is alleged that the contract is evidenced by a letter reading as follows:

“August 9, 1912.

“Mr. T. Coleman Du Pont, Wilmington, Delaware — Dear Sir: Confirming my conversation with you and recording our understanding in connection with the Equitable Building deal, there is to be paid to Mr. George N. Gardiner a commission, for services rendered and to be rendered, of $100,000 cash and $100,000 par value of the common stock of the company, same to be contingent upon the final closing of the deal now in progress for the purchase of the Equitable site and the erection of a building thereon. The cash commission will be paid out of the first moneys available from the sale of the preferred stock and second mortgage bonds of the company.

“Tours very truly, [Signed] Erank M. Andrews.

“Dear Frank: The above is just as I understand it, and provisions will be made to take care of this as early as possible.

.“[Signed] T. C. Du Pont.”

Mr. Andrews, it appears, was the architect of the McAlpin Hotel in New York City, and he was endeavoring to promote a p'roject for the acquisition of the site of the former building of the Equitable Life Assurance Society at 120 Broadway i'n New York City (which building had been burned down in January, 1912), and for the erection of a building thereon. Andrews also desired to become the architect of the new building. Du Pont had been interested with Andrews in the erection of the McAlpin Hotel, and his aid was sought in financing this new project for the erection of a new building for the Equitable. As other persons were necessary in carrying the scheme through, the services of Gardiner were enlisted.

Du Pont now claims that he signed the statement to which his signature is appended above because of the representations made to him by Andrews that Gardiner’s services were valuable and that the matter *757was “straight” and “all right”; and he asserts that the representations made by Andrews were false. He claims that at the time of signing the statement he knew nothing of what services, if any, had been rendered by Gardiner, and- that he relied solely on the representations made by Andrews; the facts being peculiarly and solely within the knowledge of Andrews. He denies that Andrews was his agent, denies that Gardiner rendered any services for him (Du Pont), and in substance an'd effect denies that Gardiner had, in fact, any contract which entitles him to recover.

According to Mr. Andrews’ testimony, Gardiner and Du Pont met at the office of Andrews, at which time matters were talked over and a suggestion was made by D;u Pont that perhaps Gardiner would he willing to take his $200,000 in stock, to which the latter replied that he could not afford to take, it all in stock, but that he would be willing to take one-half of it in stock, which Du Pont said was acceptable to him. After arranging with Gardiner, Du Pont turned to Andrews and, according to the latter’s testimony, said:

“ ‘Frank, if you will embody this conversation and agreement in a letter, and forward it to me, I will put my acceptance on the letter and return it to youand turning to Gardiner said: ‘Is that sufficient contract for you, Mr. Gardiner, or do you wish a formal contract?’ to which Gardiner replied that the letter would he entirely satisfactory to him, and that he wished the matter to he given prompt attention, because he had been worrying Mr. Andrews ~for some time to have the matter put in final form, and with a clear understanding, to which request Mr. Du Pont answered that he was as anxious to have the matter off his mind as anybody, and that, if the letter were sent, he would attend to it immediately.”

[1] At the opening of the case, and before any evidence was taken, the defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the court as a court of equity had no jurisdiction to restrain the action at law by reason of any alleged fraud, becaus'e the contract relied on is not under seal, and a defense based on the fraud alleged could be interposed in the action at law. The court did not take that view of the matter, and the injunction issued. Did the court err?

Ever since the Earl of Oxford’s Case, 1 Ch. Rep. 1, the general right of chancery to interfere by injunction for the purpose of preventing an inequitable use of legal process has been recognized in England; neither is it questioned in the United States. There can be no doubt that a court of equity can restrain an action at law in cases in which the defendant has a defense in equity which he cannot interpose in the law court. But the question presented is whether the alleged fraud used to induce Du Pont to enter into the agreement upon which the action at law is brought is purely an equitable defense, of which the party is not entitled to avail himself in the law court. If it is not, and the fraud can be shown in the action at law, the injunction was improvidently issued.

[2] At common law, in an action on a sealed instrument, fraud-could not be set up as a defense, except fraud in the actual execution of the instrument. Hartshorn v. Day, 19 How. (U. S.) 222, 15 L. Ed. 605; George v. Tate, 102 U. S. 564, 570, 24 L. Ed. 232; Shampeau v. Connecticut River Lumber Co. (C. C.) 42 Fed. 760; Kosztelnik v. Bethle*758hem Iron Co. (C. C.) 91 Fed. 606. This court has recognized the principle in a number of cases. See Whitcomb v. Shultz, 223 Fed. 268, 275, 138 C. C. A. 510 (1915). And so have the courts of New York. See Jackson v. Hills, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 290; Dorr v. Munsell, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 430. In the case of an instrument under seal, it was necessary to resort to equity to cancel the instrument. Taylor v. King, 6 Munf. (Va.) 358, 366, 8 Am. Dec. 746. The principle is that the circumstances show a want of consideration, and in a court of law an instrument under seal could not be avoided on that ground. But in other cases fraud has always been a good defense in an action at law on the contract. Mead v. Bunn, 32 N. Y. 275; Jones v. Emery, 40 N. H. 348; Irving v. Thomas, 18 Mo. 418; Harran v. Klaus, 79 Wis. 383, 48 N. W. 479; Chieves v. Gary, 24 Grat. (Va.) 414. In Such v. Bank of State of New York (C. C.) 127 Fed. 450 (1904) Judge Wallace held that a receipt in full, in the nature of a release, but not under seal, could be avoided at law in a federal court for fraud inducing the settlement pursuant to which it was given, and that the maker was not entitled to resort to equity for its cancellation.

[3, 4] We have discussed the matter upon the theory thht the representations alleged to have been false were in fact fraudulent. We are obliged so to regard them. The complainant simply stated in his bill that the representations were false. His allegation is that:

“Said representations were false, and in fact the said George N. Gardiner had not rendered any valuable services in connection with said deal. Said T. Coleman Du Pont was induced to sign said letter solely upon said representations, and would not have signed the same But for the said representations.”

In the argument in this court it was contended that a distinction exists between false representations and fraudulent representations, and that where the representations are merely false, and not fraudulent, relief can only be had in equity. A false representation may be either innocent or fraudulent. An allegation in a bill that a representation is false is therefore equivocal. And while pleadings are not construed in equity with so high a degree of technicality as at law, still the rule nevertheless prevails, even in equity, that where allegations are equivocal they will be construed most strongly against the pleader. 16 Cyc. 238. So that, if false representations which are innocent are a good defense in equity, and not in law, and those which are fraudulent are a good defense both at law and in equity, and the complainant simply alleges that the allegations are false, the allegation would seem to be insufficient.

But no demurrer was interposed, and no motion was made to dismiss the bill. An answer was put in which denied the allegation that the representation was false, and the case went to a hearing. Testimony was heard, and the District Judge found that the statement made by Andrews to Du Pont, and which was alleged to have been “a false representation,” was fraudulent. The court declares that Andrews’ statement was “false, and false in such a way that it must have been fraudulent, although the nature of, or motive for, the fraud remains unknown.” The District Judge has issued an injunction staying an ac*759tion at law because of a fraudulent representation, and his action in so doing cannot be sustained. If the representation was false, we have no doubt that it was fraudulent. The representation was of such a nature that it is hardly possible that it should have been made innocently, if false in fact. But, as fraudulent representations have always-constituted a perfect defense at law to an action upon a contract not under seal, no necessity existed for the issuance of the injunction.

The attempt, therefore, to restrain the action at law by injunction must fail. No English court is to-day permitted to restrain an action by injunction. The right to do so was taken away by the Judicature Act of 1873, under the provisions of which equitable defenses may be interposed in any action. We have not overlooked the fact that the Congress of the United States in 1915 also passed an act which declares that in all actions at law equitable defenses may be interposed. Act March 3, 1915, c. 90, 38 Stat. 956. That act was, however, not in force when the bill of complaint was filed, which was in May, 1914. The case has been decided, therefore, without reference to it. The result, however, is the same as it would have been, had the statute been applicable.

The decree is reversed, and the injunction vacated, and the case remanded, with directions to dismiss the bill, with costs.

BREYER, Circuit Judge.

The petitioner, Frank Evangelist, is a shareholder of Fidelity Cash Reserves. He sued Fidelity and its investment adviser under 15 U.S.C. § 80a-35(b), claiming that Fidelity was paying the adviser too large a fee. The district court ruled that Evangelist’s claim was basically “equitable,” not “legal” in nature, and that Evangelist was therefore not entitled to a trial before a jury. Evangelist asks us to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a jury trial. Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 472, 82 *29S.Ct. 894, 897, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962); Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 511, 79 S.Ct. 948, 957, 3 L.Ed.2d 988 (1959). The district court asked the right question — whether the claim is one ‘at law’ or ‘in equity’ — for the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of a right to a jury trial in civil cases extends only to suits at “common law,” U.S. Const., Amend. VII; it does not include cases that courts would have considered as arising in equity prior to the merger of law and equity in 1938. Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U.S. 363, 375, 94 S.Ct. 1723, 1729, 40 L.Ed.2d 198 (1974). In our view, the district court also came up with the right answer. Petitioner is not entitled to a trial by jury here, for petitioner’s claim is basically ‘equitable’ in nature.

I

The statute under which the petitioner pursues his claim says that, on behalf of an investment company like Fidelity, the Securities and Exchange Commission or a shareholder can sue the company’s investment adviser “for breach of fiduciary duty in respect of” the investment adviser’s “compensation.” (See Appendix, infra.) Two opinions in the Second Circuit (one by a district court and one by the circuit court of appeals) have thoroughly discussed the arguments for and against the conclusion that Congress intended (and constitutionally could intend) that the typical claim arising under this statute would be tried before a judge alone, without a jury. Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., 487 F.Supp. 999, 1005 (S.D.N.Y.), mandamus denied sub nom. In re Gartenberg, 636 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 910, 101 S.Ct. 1979, 68 L.Ed.2d 298 (1981). Both courts concluded that Congress intended (and could intend) a judge-tried action, basically for the following reasons.

First, the statute creates a near classical ‘breach of fiduciary duty’ cause of action. The statute refers to the standard that it imposes as one of “fiduciary duty”; it says that the action need not involve tortious conduct, 15 U.S.C. § 80a-35(b)(l) (no need to show “personal misconduct”); it does not require a showing of breach of contract, 15 U.S.C. § 80a-35(b)(2) (any contract will be given “such consideration as is ... appropriate”). Actions for breach of fiduciary duty, historically speaking, are almost uniformly actions ‘in equity’ — carrying with them no right to trial by jury. Restatement of Restitution, introductory note at 9 (1937) (“[Ejquity still retains jurisdiction of nearly all situations involving a breach of fiduciary duty.”).

Second, the statute’s legislative history makes clear that Congress thought it was creating an action ‘in equity.’ See S.Rep. No. 91-184, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969), reprinted in [1970] U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, at 4897, 4911 (section authorizes “an equitable action involving a claim of fiduciary duty”); H.Rep. No. 91-1382, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) at 38 (same); H.R. Conf.Rep. No. 91-1631, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970), reprinted in [1970] U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 4943 (section defines relationship governed by “equitable standards”); cf. Hearings before the Sub-comm. on Commerce and Finance of the House Comm, on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Nov. 12 — Dec. 11, 1969, Serial No. 91-33 at 796, (statement of Judge Henry J. Friendly, stating, in reference to different bills designed to deal with the same subject, that “actions to recover unreasonable fees are equitable in nature, [and] would be tried to judges and not to juries”).

Third, the remedy Congress created — the payment of any excess fee to the company — is similar to the traditional equity remedy of an “accounting,” see Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U.S. 176, 176, 75 S.Ct. 249, 249, 99 L.Ed. 233 (1955); cf. Medtronic, Inc. v. Intermedics, Inc., 725 F.2d 440, 443-44 (7th Cir.1984) (discussing history and nature of equitable accounting); see also H. McClintock, Handbook of the Principles of Equity (2d ed. 1937) § 200 at 537 n. 2 (only one case of account at law in New York before 1842 and not more than a dozen in two centuries in England). Like other remedies of restitution, that remedy requires one owing a *30fiduciary duty to pay to the beneficiary of that obligation — to “disgorge” — money taken in derogation of the duty. Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189, 197, 94 S.Ct. 1005, 1009, 39 L.Ed.2d 260 (1974). See generally E. Re, Remedies 298, 683-755 (1982); D. Dobbs, The Law of Remedies 222-78, 683-84 (1973).

On the other hand, we recognize that, against these three arguments, one can point to the appearance of the word “damages” in one of the statute’s subsections. That subsection reads as follows:

... no damages or other relief shall be granted against any other person other than the recipient of such compensation or payments. No award of damages shall be recoverable for any period prior to one year before the action was instituted. Any award of damages against such recipient shall be limited to the actual damages resulting from the breach of fiduciary duty.

15 U.S.C. § 80a-35(b)(3). This use of the word “damages,” as well as the limitation on recovery contained in the last sentence, distinguishes this action to a degree from traditional equitable monetary remedies like an accounting or other forms of restitution, for those equitable monetary remedies often include recovery of profits on the money the unfaithful fiduciary has taken; here the statute not only uses a word, “damages,” that is traditionally associated with ‘legal’ remedies but also limits liability to the amount taken from the company. See S.Rep. No. 91-184, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969), reprinted in [1970] U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, at 4911 (damages “may not exceed the amount of the payments received” by the investment adviser).

This limitation of recovery, however, is in fact neutral in respect to the issue before us. It makes the action look neither more “equitable” nor more “legal.” Granted, insofar as the limitation prevents recovery of profits generated by any excess payment, it makes the action look less like an equitable ‘accounting’ and hence more like a ‘legal’ remedy. But, as the legislative history makes clear, the limitation also prevents the company from recovering any special damages that the excess payments may have caused. Insofar as it prevents the recovery of special damages in excess of the payments made by the investment company, the limitation makes the action look less like a ‘tort’ or ‘contract’ remedy and more like ‘restitution,’ which is conventionally understood as an ‘equitable’ remedy. In re Seatrade Corporation, 345 F.2d 785, 787 (2d Cir.1965) (per curiam) (“restitutionary remedies are basically equitable in nature”).

In respect to the fact that the statute uses the word “damages,” the district court in Gartenberg, supra, stated the following:

[I]t seems likely from the context that Congress was using “damages” merely as a shorthand for “recovery of money,” not as a legal term of art. Since ... not all claims for monetary relief are legal in nature, the use of the term “damages” is not persuasive in this instance. In particular, given the repeated statement in the legislative history that actions under § 36(b) are equitable, to be administered on equitable standards, it would seem impossible to conclude from the use of the word “damages” that Congress thereby provided for a trial by jury.

Gartenberg v. Merrill Lynch Asset Management, Inc., 487 F.Supp. at 1006. We agree with the Gartenberg court. The simple use of the word “damages,” in light of the other evidence of Congressional intent, is not sufficient to show that Congress intended to create an action ‘at law’ in the typical § 80a-35 case. And, the similarities between this action and classical equity actions — the first and third considerations mentioned above — show sufficient resemblance to classical pre-1938 actions in equity for accounting or restitution to allow the statute to pass muster under the Seventh Amendment. Cf. Pernell v. Southall Realty, supra.

In sum, we agree with the Second Circuit, for reasons more fully set out in the two Gartenberg cases. The plaintiff in a *31typical § 80a-35 case — presenting a claim that rests solely upon breach of fiduciary duty — is not entitled to a jury trial.

II

The remaining question in this case is whether the action before us, for some reason, falls outside the Gartenberg rationale. Petitioner makes two arguments that it does. First, he points out that his complaint asks for “damages.” In Gartenberg plaintiff brought a derivative action on behalf of the company seeking repayment to the company of excess investment adviser fees. His prayer for relief, in relevant part, asked the court to require the adviser “to account to the Trust for all excessive advisory fees.” In the case before us the petitioner has brought an identical action, alleging excessive fees that breach the adviser’s “fiduciary duty to the Trust.” The request for relief, however, does not use the word “account,” but, instead, asks the court to require the adviser “to pay to the Trust its damages.”

We can find no significant differences of any sort between the two complaints except that one uses the word “account” while the other uses the word “damages.” And, in our view, the right to a jury trial cannot turn on the simple substitution of a different word. Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 477-78, 82 S.Ct. 894, 899-900, 8 L.Ed.2d 44 (1962) (“the constitutional right to a trial by jury cannot be made to depend on the choice of words used in the pleadings”); cf. Medtronic, Inc. v. Intermedics, Inc., 725 F.2d at 443 (“a suit for damages is not equitable merely because the plaintiff describes his action as one for an accounting”). Otherwise, any equitable action for money, say for restitution, could become a legal action by the use of the word “damages” in place of the word “restitution.”

Petitioner cites various cases in support of his argument that at least sometimes one can view a breach of fiduciary duty claim as setting forth an action at law, not in equity. We agree that sometimes this is so. Historically, a plaintiff under certain circumstances would occasionally bring an action for accounting at law, where, for example, no breach of fiduciary duty is at issue. See, e.g., Restatement of Restitution § 124, comment a and § 125, comment a (1937) (accounting by non-fiduciary for property received from third person). Conduct that breaches a fiduciary duty might also violate other legal rules; it might constitute a tort (such as fraud) or breach of contract. In each of the cases cited by petitioner, the relevant conduct was alleged to violate some such other legal principle, so it is not surprising that the courts viewed the complaint at issue as setting forth a claim for damages at law. Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. 531 at 542, 90 S.Ct. 733 at 740, 24 L.Ed.2d 729 (1970) (breach of contract and gross negligence); Bruce v. Bohanon, 436 F.2d 733, 736 (10th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 918, 91 S.Ct. 2227, 29 L.Ed.2d 694 (1971) (tortious misappropriation of trade information); National Union Elec. Corp. v. Wilson, 434 F.2d 986, 987-88 (6th Cir.1970) (conspiracy to defraud); Halladay v. Verschoor, 381 F.2d 100, 109 (8th Cir.1967) (fraudulent transactions); DePinto v. Provident Security Life Ins. Co., 323 F.2d 826, 836-37 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 950, 84 S.Ct. 969, 11 L.Ed.2d 970 (1964) (gross negligence: “Where a claim of breach of fiduciary duty is predicated upon underlying conduct, such as negligence, which is actionable in a direct suit at common law, the issue of whether there has been such a breach is ... a jury question.”); Robine v. Ryan, 310 F.2d 797, 798 (2d Cir.1962) (wrongful appropriation); Kelly v. Dolan, 233 F. 635, 637 (3rd Cir.1916) (negligence). Here, however, the claim is solely one for breach of fiduciary duty under § 80a-35. Cf. Moses v. Burgin, 445 F.2d 369, 384 (1st Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Johnson v. Moses, 404 U.S. 994, 92 S.Ct. 532, 30 L.Ed.2d 547 (1971) (award of damages for gross misconduct under former § 80a-35); Tanzer v. Huffines, 314 F.Supp. 189, 196 (D.Del.1970) (allegations of gross misconduct under former § 80a-35 would allow relief both in damages and equitable accounting).

*32Second, petitioner argues that he has brought a different claim along with his § 80a-35 claim. This different claim charges misrepresentation, a classical tort action brought ‘at law.’ He says that this fact entitles him to a jury trial on both his (legal) misrepresentation charge and also his § 80a-35 claim.

This argument, however, suffers from three defects, each one of which is fatal. For one thing, joining a legal with an equitable claim does not give a plaintiff a right to a jury trial on the equitable claim. Rather, at most it gives the plaintiff a right to have the jury decide common issues of fact, and hence, it can provide a right to have the legal claim tried first. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 334-35, 99 S.Ct. 645, 653-54, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979); Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U.S. at 540, 90 S.Ct. at 739; Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. at 510, 79 S.Ct. at 956. Here, plaintiff has shown no common issues of fact.

For another thing, the district court here granted summary judgment for the defendant on the legal misrepresentation claim. Hence, there is nothing ‘legal’ to try first. Apparently, the petitioner intends to appeal the dismissal of his misrepresentation claim. But, we are aware of no authority giving a plaintiff the right to have a dismissed legal claim tried first (or tried at all) simply because it might be reinstated on appeal. And, to imagine such a right is to imagine an accompanying degree of administrative chaos.

Finally, the respondent here says, without contradiction, that the petitioner never raised this issue in the court below. Thus, in any event, we need not investigate it further. Cf. Johnston v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 595 F.2d 890, 894 (1st Cir.1979).

For these reasons, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

APPENDIX

§ 80a-35. Breach of fiduciary duty

(a) The Commission is authorized to bring an action in the proper district court of the United States, or in the United States court of any territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, alleging that a person serving or acting in one or more of the following capacities has engaged within five years of the commencement of the action or is about to engage in any act or practice constituting a breach of fiduciary duty involving personal misconduct in respect of any registered investment company for which such person so serves or acts—

(1) as officer, director, member of any advisory board, investment adviser, or depositor; or

(2) as principal underwriter, if such registered company is an open-end company, unit investment trust, or face-amount certificate company.

If such allegations are established, the court may enjoin such persons from acting in any or all such capacities either permanently or temporarily and award such injunctive or other relief against such person as may be reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances having due regard to the protection of investors and to the effectuation of the policies declared in section 1(b) of this title [15 USCS § 80a-l(b)].

(b) For the purposes of this subsection, the investment adviser of a registered investment company shall be deemed to have a fiduciary duty with respect to the receipt of compensation for services, or of payments of a material nature, paid by such registered investment company, or by the security holders thereof, to such investment adviser or any affiliated person of such investment adviser. An action may be brought under this subsection by the Commission, or by a security holder of such registered investment company on behalf of such company, against such investment adviser, or any affiliated person of such investment adviser, or any other person enumerated in subsection (a) of this section who has a fiduciary duty concerning such compensation or payments, for breach of fiduciary duty in respect of such compensation or payments paid by such registered investment company or by the security *33holders thereof to such investment adviser or person. With respect to any such action the following provisions shall apply:

(1) It shall not be necessary to allege or prove that any defendant .engaged in personal misconduct, and the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving a breach of fiduciary duty.

(2) In any such action approval by the board of directors of such investment company of such compensation or payments, or of contracts or other arrangements providing for such compensation or payments, and ratification or approval of such compensation or payments, or of contracts or other' arrangements providing for such compensation or payments, by the shareholders of such investment company, shall be given such consideration by the court as is deemed appropriate under all the circumstances.

(3) No such action shall be brought or maintained against any person other than the recipient of such compensation or payments, and no damages or other relief shall be granted against any person other than the recipient of such compensation or payments. No award of damages shall be recoverable for any period prior to one year before the action was instituted. Any award of damages against such recipient shall be limited to the actual damages resulting from the breach of fiduciary duty and shall in no event exceed the amount of compensation or payments received from such investment company, or the security holders thereof, by such recipient.

(4) This subsection shall not apply to compensation or payments made in connection with transactions subject to section 17 of this title [15 USCS § 80a-17], or rules, regulations, or orders thereunder, or to sales loans for the acquisition of any security issued by a registered investment company.

(5) Any action pursuant to this subsection may be brought only in an appropriate district court of the United States.

(6) No finding by a court with respect to a breach of fiduciary duty under this subsection shall be made a basis (A) for a finding of a violation of this title [11 USCS §§ 72, 107; 15 USCS §§ 80a-l et seq.] for the purposes of sections 9 and 49 of this title [15 USCS §§ 80a-9, 80a-48], section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 USCS § 78o], or section 203 of title II of this Act [15 USCS § 80b-3], or (B) for an injunction to prohibit any person from serving in any of the capacities enumerated in subsection (a) of this section.

[(c) ](d) For the purposes of subsections (a) [through (c)] of this section, the term “investment adviser” includes a corporate or other trustee performing the functions of an investment adviser.

*5Opinion

RICHARDSON, J.

The issue posed by this case is whether or not defendant was improperly denied its constitutional right to a jury trial. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 16.) We will conclude that because plaintiff’s suit for damages for breach of contract was based entirely upon the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel (see Drennan v. Star Paving Co. (1958) 51 Cal.2d 409 [333 P.2d 757]), the gist of the action must be deemed equitable in nature and, under well established principles, neither party was entitled to a jury trial as a matter of right.

Plaintiff, a general contractor, solicited bids from defendant and other subcontractors for the installation of reinforcing steel in the construction of a waste water tréatment plant in Fresno County. Plaintiff included defendant’s bid in its master bid, which was ultimately accepted by the public sanitation district, the proposed owner of the plant. After defendant refused to perform in accordance with its bid on the subcontract, plaintiff brought the present action to recover $102,660 in damages for defendant’s alleged breach of contract. (A second cause of action, claiming defendant’s negligence in preparing its bid, was dismissed during trial and is not presently at issue.)

The allegations of plaintiff’s first cause of action may be summarized: defendant submitted a written bid of $139,511 for the work; defendant gave a subsequent “verbal promise” that the work would be performed for the bid price; plaintiff “reasonably relied” on defendant’s bid and promise in submitting its master bid; defendant knew or should have known that plaintiff would submit a master bid based upon defendant’s bid; defendant refused to perform in accordance with its bid; plaintiff was required to expend $242,171 to perform the reinforcing steel work; as a result plaintiff was damaged in the amount of $102,660; and “Injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of defendant’s promise to perform

Defendant’s answer to the complaint alleged its bid was the result of an “honest mistake” in calculation; plaintiff knew of the mistake but failed to notify defendant or permit it to revise its bid as is customary in the industry; and plaintiff’s conduct in this regard should bar it from recovering damages.

*6Defendant demanded a jury trial. The trial court, deeming the case to be essentially in equity, denied the request but empaneled an advisory jury to consider the sole issue of plaintiff’s reasonable reliance on defendant’s promise. The jury found that plaintiff reasonably relied to its detriment on defendant’s bid. The trial court adopted this finding and entered judgment in plaintiff’s favor for $102,620, the approximate amount of its prayer, together with interest and costs. Defendant appeals.

Defendant’s primary contention is that it was improperly denied a jury trial of plaintiff’s action for damages. In resolving this contention we first review the nature and derivation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Thereafter, we discuss certain authorities governing the right to jury trial in this state. As will appear, we have concluded that by reason of the essentially equitable nature of the doctrine and plaintiff’s exclusive reliance upon it in the present action, the case was properly triable by the court with an advisory jury.

1. Promissory Estoppel

The elements of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, as described concisely in section 90 of the Restatement of Contracts, are as follows: “A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.” The foregoing rule has been judicially adopted in California and it applies to actions, such as the present case, to enforce a subcontractor’s bid. (Drennan v. Star Paving Co., supra, 51 Cal.2d 409, 413-415; Saliba-Kringlen Corp. v. Allen Engineering Co. (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 95, 111 [92 Cal.Rptr. 799].) It is undisputed that plaintiff’s complaint in the matter before us relies exclusively upon the doctrine to enforce defendant’s alleged promise to perform its bid. In fact, the language of the complaint, summarized above, paraphrases that of section 90 in asserting that “Injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of defendant’s promise to perform. . . .”

We have recently characterized promissory estoppel as “a doctrine which employs equitable principles to satisfy the requirement that consideration must be given in exchange for the promise sought to be enforced. [Citations.]” (Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1974) 10 Cal.3d 665, 672 [111 Cal.Rptr. 693, 517 P.2d 1157], italics added; see *7Seymour v. Oelrichs (1909) 156 Cal. 782, 794-800 [106 P. SB]; Klein v. Farmer (1948) 85 Cal.App.2d 545, 552-553 [194 P.2d 106].) Many years ago in Seymour, we recognized a comparable doctrine in the enforcement of an oral promise to enter into a written contract of employment, where plaintiff had detrimentally relied thereon by surrendering his former position. We observed therein that “The right of courts of equity to hold a person estopped to assert the statute of frauds, where such assertion would amount to practicing a fraud, cannot be disputed.” (156 Cal. at p. 794, italics added.) We did not find that application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel was barred by the fact that the case involved a promise of future action rather than a representation offact. (Pp. 797-800.)

Treatise writers and commentators have confirmed the generally equitable nature of promissory estoppel in enforcing a promise which otherwise would be unenforceable. (See 3 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (5th ed. 1941) § 808b, at pp. 211-216; 1 Williston, Contracts (3d ed. 1957) § 140, pp. 618-619, fn. 6; Seavey, Reliance Upon Gratuitous Promises or Other Conduct (1951) 64 Harv.L.Rev. 913, 925; Henderson, Promissory Estoppel and Traditional Contract Doctrine (1969) 78 Yale L.J. 343, 379-380; Ames, The History of Assumpsit (1888) 2 Harv.L.Rev. 1, 14.) As expressed by Professor Henderson, “[Promissory estoppel is a peculiarly equitable doctrine designed to deal with situations which, in total impact, necessarily call into play discretionary powers, . . .” (78 Yale L.J., supra, at pp. 379-380, italics added.) One distinguished commentator has observed that promissory estoppel derives from both “the decisions of the courts of common law from the very beginnings of the action of assumpsit [as well as] the decrees of courts of equity making a very flexible use of the doctrine of ‘estoppel,’ . . .” (1A Corbin, Contracts (1963) § 194, at p. 193, fn. omitted; see also id., § 195.) The available authorities generally concur, however, that as of 1850 assumpsit would not lie to enforce a gratuitous promise, where the promisee’s detrimental reliance was not requested by the promisor. (Ames, supra, 2 Harv.L.Rev. at p. 14; Seavey, supra, 64 Harv.L.Rev. at p. 913; Shattuck, Gratuitous Promises—A New Writ (1937) 35 Mich.L.Rev. 908, 909-914; 1 Williston, supra, at pp. 618-619, fn. 6; 8 Holdsworth, A History of English Law (1966) p. 10.)

The equitable character of promissory estoppel is confirmed by a close scrutiny of the purpose of the doctrine, namely, that “injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.” (Rest., Contracts, supra, § 90, italics added.) As expressed by us in a similar subcontractor bid *8case, once the prerequisites of the doctrine are met, “. . . it is only fair that plaintiff should have at least an opportunity to accept defendant’s bid after the general contract has been awarded to him.” (Drennan v. Star Paving Co., supra, 51 Cal.2d at p. 415, italics added; see also Seavey, supra, 64 Harv.L.Rev. at p. 925; Henderson, supra, 78 Yale L.J. at p. 379 [“The specific concern of Section 90 with ‘injustice,’ standing alone, contemplates broad judicial discretion to make use of equitable principles”].) We think that it is noteworthy that a proposed addition to section 90 would add the language “The remedy granted for breach may be limited as justice requires.” (Rest.2d Contracts (Tent. Drafts Nos. 1-7, 1973) § 90, p. 215, italics added; Swinerton & Walberg Co. v. City of Inglewood—L. A. County Civic Center Authority (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 98, 103, fn. 7 [114 Cal.Rptr. 834].)

We conclude, accordingly, that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is essentially equitable in nature, developed to provide a remedy (namely, enforcement of a gratuitous promise) which was not generally available in courts of law prior to 1850. We now move to an examination of the authorities on the subject of the right to a jury trial, to determine whether the equitable nature of plaintiff’s action precluded a jury trial as a matter of right.

2. Right to Jury Trial

The right to a jury trial is guaranteed by our Constitution. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 16.) We have long acknowledged that the right so guaranteed, however, is the right as it existed at common law in 1850, when the Constitution was first adopted, “and what that right is, is a purely historical question, a fact which is to be ascertained like any other social, political or legal fact.” (People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe (1951) 37 Cal.2d 283, 287 [231 P.2d 832]; accord Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Superior Court (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 433, 436 [129 Cal.Rptr. 912]; Meyer Koulish Co. v. Cannon (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 419, 430 [28 Cal.Rptr. 757]; Veale v. Piercy (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 557, 560 [24 Cal.Rptr. 91].) As a general proposition, “[T]he jury trial is a matter of right in a civil action at law, but not in equity.” (Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.App.3d at p. 436; accord Abbott v. City of Los Angeles (1958) 50 Cal.2d 438, 462 [326 P.2d 484]; People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe, supra, 37 Cal.2d at p. 299; Paularena v. Superior Court (1965) 231 Cal.App.2d 906, 911 [42 Cal.Rptr. 366].)

*9As we stated in People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe, supra, 37 Cal.2d 283, “ ‘If the action has to deal with ordinary common-law rights cognizable in courts of law, it is to that extent an action at law. In determining whether the action was one triable by a jury at common law, the court is not bound by the form of the action but rather by the nature of the rights involved and the facts of the particular case—the gist of the action. A jury trial must be granted where the gist of the action is legal, where the action is in reality cognizable at law.’ ” (P. 299, fn. omitted,' italics added.) On the other hand, if the action is essentially one in equity and the relief sought “depends upon the application of equitable doctrines,” the parties are not entitled to a jury trial. (E.g., Hartman v. Burford (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 268, 270 [51 Cal.Rptr. 309] [enforcement of promise to make a will]; Tibbitts v. Fife (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 568, 572 [328 P.2d 212] [establishment of constructive trust].) Although we have said that “the legal or equitable nature of a cause of action ordinarily is determined by the mode of relief to be afforded” (Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn., supra, 10 Cal.3d 665, 672), the prayer for relief in a particular case is not conclusive (Paularena v. Superior Court, supra, 231 Cal.App.2d at pp. 911-912; Interinsurance Exchange v. Savior (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 691, 694 [124 Cal.Rptr. 239]). Thus, “The fact that damages is one of a full range of possible remedies does not guarantee . . . the right to a jury . . . .” (Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.App.3d at p. 437.)

In the present case, the complaint purports to seek recovery of damages for breach of contract, in form an action at law in which a right to jury trial ordinarily would exist. (Raedeke, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. 671; Interinsurance Exchange, supra, 51 Cal.App.3d at p. 694; Code Civ. Proc., § 592.) As we have seen, however, the complaint seeks relief which was available only in equity, namely, the enforcement of defendant’s gratuitous promise to perform its bid through application of the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel. Although there is no direct authority on point, several cases have held that actions based upon the analogous principle of equitable estoppel may be tried by the court without a jury. (Jaffe v. Albertson Co. (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 592, 607-608 [53 Cal.Rptr. 25] [estoppel to bar reliance on statute of frauds]; Moss v. Bluemm (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 70, 72-73 [40 Cal.Rptr. 50] [estoppel to bar statute of limitations defense]; Richard v. Degan & Brody, Inc. (1960) 181 Cal.App.2d 289, 295 [5 Cal.Rptr. 263] [estoppel as defense to unlawful detainer action]; Ford v. Palisades Corp. (1950) 101 Cal.App.2d 491, *10498-499 [225 P.2d 545] [statute of frauds]; see Raedeke v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn., supra, 10 Cal.3d 665, 674, and fn. 4.)

Defendant responds by relying primarily upon certain dictum in Raedeke, supra, which also concerned an action based on promissory estoppel. The Raedeke complaint alleged dual theories of traditional breach of contract and promissory estoppel. We stressed that the “resolution of the instant case did not depend entirely upon the application of equitable principles; the doctrine of promissory estoppel was only one of two alternative theories of recovery.” (P. 674, fn. omitted.) Accordingly, we held in Raedeke that plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial, and that the trial court erred in treating the jury’s findings and verdict as advisory only. In a footnote, however, we added the following dictum: “Moreover, even as to plaintiffs’ reliance upon promissory estoppel, there is some basis for holding that the action remained one at law. ‘The fact that equitable principles are applied in the action does not necessarily identify the resultant relief as equitable. [Citations.] Equitable principles are a guide to courts of law as well as of equity. [Citations.] Furthermore, the incidental adoption of equitable sounding measures to effect the application of equitable principles in an action at law, such as for damages, does not change the character of that action. [Citations.]’ (Paularena v. Superior Court, supra, 231 Cal.App.2d 906, 912.)” (10 Cal.3d at p. 674, fn. 4.)

The foregoing general principles do not alter our conclusion that the present action is, essentially, one recognized only in courts of equity and, despite plaintiff’s request for damages, is not an “action at law” involving, to use the Raedeke language, the “incidental adoption of equitable sounding measures.” Defendant before us has argued that because plaintiff sought to recover damages rather than to compel defendant to perform its bid, plaintiff requested relief which is available at common law. Yet, as we have seen, damages at law were unavailable in actions for breach of1 a gratuitous promise. The only manner in which damages have been recognized in such cases of gratuitous promises is by application of the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel which renders such promises legally binding. (See Saliba-Kringlen Corp. v. Allen Engineering Co., supra, 15 Cal.App.3d 95, 111.) Without the employment of this doctrine, essentially equitable, there was no remedy at all. As illustrated by the express language of section 90 of the Restatement of Contracts, promissory estoppel is used to avoid injustice “by enforcement of the promise.” (Italics added.)

*11Furthermore, the addition, in such cases, of a prayer for damages does not convert what is essentially an equitable action into a legal one for which a jury trial would be available. This was demonstrated in a recent case, Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.App.3d 433, wherein plaintiff sought damages as a good faith improver of land owned by another person. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 871.1 et seq.) The appellate court rejected the contention that plaintiff’s request for damages necessarily identified the action as one at law. The court first noted that since the good faith improver statute had no counterpart in English common law, “classification of the action as either legal or equitable depends upon characterization of the nature of the relief sought.” (P. 437.)

The Southern Pac. Transportation court properly observed that under the statute, the trial court must “effect such an adjustment of the rights, equities, and interests” of the parties as was consistent with substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.5.) Thus, the action was essentially one calling for the exercise of equitable principles. The court added, “The fact that damages is one of a full range of possible remedies does not guarantee real parties the right to a jury,” since “there is no possibility of severing the legal from the equitable. The trier of fact must determine whether to quiet title in the improver on the condition he pay to the landowner the value of the unimproved land, or whether and in what amount, to award damages to the improver, or whether to require a completely different form of relief .... Such a determination is not susceptible of division into one component to be resolved by the court and another component to be determined by a jury. Only one decision can be made, and it must make a proper adjustment of the ‘rights, equities, and interests’ .of all the parties involved.” (Pp. 437-438.) The court concluded that in view of the various equitable considerations involved, it would be “an impossible task” for a jury to resolve the dispute. (P. 438.)

Similarly, in the present case, the trier of fact is called upon to determine whether “injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of [defendant’s] promise.” (Rest., Contracts, § 90.) The “gist” of such an action is equitable. Both historically and functionally, the task of weighing such equitable considerations is to be performed by the trial court, not the jury. We conclude that the trial court properly treated the action as equitable in nature, to be tried by the court with or without an advisory jury as the court elected.

*123. Exclusion of Custom Evidence

Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence of industry custom, which evidence assertedly would have supported a finding that plaintiff did not reasonably rely upon defendant’s low bid. This evidence would have shown that it is customary for the general contractor, prior to accepting a bid, to disclose to subcontractors the approximate disparity (in either percentage or dollar amounts) between the bids.

The proffered testimony was properly rejected as cumulative and of doubtful relevance. At trial, the evidence indicated that ordinarily the various subcontractors’ bids are within 5 to 15 percent of each other, and seldom more than 20 percent apart. Defendant’s bid in the present case was approximately 40 percent lower than the next lowest bid.

The record also discloses, however, that after plaintiff received all bids, its chief estimator (Potts) called defendant’s chief estimator (Bass) to confirm defendant’s bid. According to Potts, he told Bass that defendant’s bid was “a hell of a lot” lower than 20 percent below the other bids, and he asked Bass to recheck defendant’s figures. Bass did so and confirmed the bid, which plaintiff thereupon included in its master bid. The testimony of Bass was in conflict with that of Potts as to the nature of the telephone conversation, Bass saying that Potts told him the bid was “in the neighborhood” of 20 percent below other bids. The trial court and advisory jury evidently disbelieved Bass. The trial court specifically found that Potts advised Bass that “defendant’s bid was substantially lower than other bids.” Moreover, both the court and the jury (responding to a special verdict interrogatory) found that plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied on defendant’s bid.

In light of the foregoing testimony, and the resolution by court and jury of its conflicts, it is not reasonably likely that the proffered custom evidence would have produced a different verdict. Plaintiff never disputed the existence of a custom to warn subcontractors of unusually low bids; in fact, Potts’ testimony was directed toward showing that plaintiff complied with such a custom by notifying defendant of its substantially lower bid and asking for confirmation thereof. We conclude that the court did not err in excluding the evidence.

*134. Exclusion of Statements During Settlement Negotiations

Finally, defendant contends that the trial court erred in excluding certain statements made by plaintiff’s agent, Olson, during settlement negotiations. Defendant offered to prove that, during settlement discussions, Olson admitted that Potts recounted to him a version of the Potts-Bass telephone conversation which was “practically word for word” the same as Bass’ own version. Such testimony might have impeached Potts’ direct testimony to the effect that he advised Bass that defendant’s bid was “a hell of a lot” lower than the other bids.

The trial court properly excluded the evidence, for under Evidence Code section 1152, subdivision (a), “conduct or statements made in negotiation [of compromise] . . . [are] inadmissible to prove . . . liability . . . .” Defendant relies on People ex rel. Dept. Public Works v. Forster (1962) 58 Cal.2d 257, 263-265 [23 Cal.Rptr. 582, 373 P.2d 630], wherein we held that an independent and absolute admission of fact which is intended to admit liability is admissible even though it was made during the course of compromise negotiations. The Forster case, however, was decided prior to the enactment of section 1152, and the comment of the California Law Revision Commission make it clear that the current language of this section changed the prior law under the Forster decision. According to the commission, “[t]he rule of the Forster case is changed by Section 1152 because that rule prevents the complete candor between the parties that is most conducive to settlement.” (See County of San Joaquin v. Galletti (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 840, 842-843 [61 Cal.Rptr. 62]; see also Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1966) pp. 337-338; but see Moving Picture etc. Union v. Glasgow Theaters, Inc. (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 395, 402 [86 Cal.Rptr. 33].)

In the present case, the excluded admission occurred during compromise negotiations in which both parties were discussing, and attempting to discover, the facts underlying their dispute. The strong public policy favoring settlement negotiations and the necessity of candor in conducting them combine to require exclusion of Olson’s admission.

The judgment is affirmed.

Tobriner, J., Mosk, J., Clark, J., and Manuel, J., concurred.

*14NEWMAN, J.

I dissent. The Chancery Court in England sometimes created rights, sometimes remedies. When California courts decide whether a jury trial should be assured, I believe that they should focus not on rights but on remedies. A plaintiff who seeks damages should be entitled to a jury. One who seeks specific performance or an injunction or quiet title, etc. (plus supplementary damages or “damages in lieu” that would have been allowed in Chancery) is not entitled to a jury.

The majority opinion here discusses “promissory estoppel,” “equitable estoppel,” “equitable principles,” “equitable doctrine,” “equitable nature,” and even “injustice.” To pretend that words like those enable us to isolate “ordinary common-law rights cognizable in courts of law” or that “the gist of the action” governs (quoting from People v. One 1941 Chevrolet Coupe (1951) 37 Cal.2d 283, 299 [231 P.2d 832]) seems to me to be uninstructive fictionalizing. We are told that courts deal with “a purely historical question, a fact which is to be ascertained like any other social, political or legal fact” (id., at p. 287). Yet how often, I wonder, do (or should) California judges instead decide whether the wisdom of a Corbin, in 1963, outweighs comments by Ames, Seavey, Shattuck, and Williston written during the period from 1888 to 1957?

In fact, most rights that are now enforced via a juiy were created not by courts but by legislatures. We look at the remedy sought, not at the judicial or legislative histoiy of the right, to decide whether the trial is to be “legal” or “equitable.” There are troubling borderlines, but the basic rule should be that no jury is required when plaintiff seeks equitable relief rather than “legal” damages. That approach requires no complex, historical research regarding when and by whom certain rights were created. It also requires less reliance on the anomalies of England’s unique juridical history. Courts thus may focus on a basic policy concern; that is, the typically more continuing and more personalized involvement of the trial judge in specific performance and injunctive decrees than in mere judgments for damages.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel was not, I suggest, “developed to provide a remedy (namely, enforcement of a gratuitous promise)” as the majority here contend. What it really did was to help create a new right *15(just as statutes help create new rights) that apparently, but only if we reject what seems to have been Corbin’s view, was enforced as of 1850 in Chancery but not at common law.

Plaintiff in this case sought damages for an alleged breach of contract. He did not seek equitable relief. Thus defendant should have been granted the jury trial he requested.

Bird, C. J., concurred.

JUSTICE TULLY

delivered the opinion of the court:

Third-party plaintiff Richard Harris appeals from an order of the circuit court dismissing with prejudice his action against third-party defendant Scott Peters. It is from this order that Harris now appeals to this court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 301 (134 Ill. 2d R. 301).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On October 8, 1988, Harris entered into a lease agreement with U.B. Vehicle Leasing, Inc. (hereinafter UB), whereby Harris leased a 1988 Audi from UB. On September 6,1991, the Audi was totaled in a collision with Peters’ vehicle. Peters’ insurer tendered Harris a check for the fair market value of the Audi. Harris endorsed the check over *207to UB, which under the terms of the leasing agreement applied the funds toward paying the balance due it under the agreement’s terms.

On February 20, 1992, UB filed a complaint against Harris, seeking $5,560.48, the balance remaining on the lease. On April 2, 1992, Harris filed his answer to UB’s complaint and a two-count third-party complaint against Peters and his insurer seeking judgment in an amount equivalent to any judgment which might be entered against Harris in the underlying UB action. In essence, Harris was seeking the difference between the Audi’s fair market value and the total amount due over the term of the vehicle lease.

On May 18, 1992, Peters and the insurance company filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. Thereafter, the circuit court dismissed the count against Peters and allowed Harris to voluntarily dismiss the count against the underwriter. The instant appeal followed.

ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW:

Whether the trial court was correct in ruling on the motion to dismiss that Harris was properly compensated for the property loss that he suffered in the accident with Peters.

OPINION

Compensatory damages are those which are awarded to a person as compensation, indemnity or restitution for a wrong or injury sustained by him. (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 901, at 451 (1979); 15 Ill. L. & Prac. Damages § 31, at 377 (1968); see also Dial v. City of O’Fallon (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 548, 558.) The purpose of awarding compensatory damages is to make the injured party whole and restore him to the position he was in before the loss (Rittenhouse v. Tabor Grain Co. (1990), 203 Ill. App. 3d 639, 650-51, citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 901, Comment a, at 452 (1979)), but not to enable him to make a profit or windfall on the transaction. (McLane v. Russell (1989), 131 Ill. 2d 509, 523.) Accordingly, when personal property is destroyed or rendered useless, the measure of damages is the fair market value of the thing in question immediately prior to its destruction. (Rittenhouse, 203 Ill. App. 3d at 639; Gannon v. Freeman (1982), 103 Ill. App. 3d 917, 919.) Applying these principles to the case sub judice, it is clear to us that the trial court did not err in dismissing Harris’ complaint.

Harris urges that the only way that he can be made whole is if he is awarded the difference between the Audi’s fair market value and the total amount due over the term of the vehicle lease. We disagree. We believe that Harris was made whole when he was given *208the fair market value of the car, which necessarily compensates for loss of use and enjoyment; Peters took a car from Harris and was given back the car in the form of its cash equivalent. However, if Peters is then required to pay Harris’ lease obligation in full, then Harris’ economic position is enriched.

Immediately before the accident Harris had the car and an obligation to pay UB an amount of money in excess of the fair market value of the car. In other words, a negative net on the transaction. As things stand now Harris has the car (in the form of the cash payment) and the obligation to pay UB. However, if Peters is forced to pay off Harris’ lease, Harris will be enriched to the extent that he has rid himself of the negative net — the obligation to pay UB which he had before the accident.

This economic or compensatory analysis holds true also if one examines this case from the standpoint of causation. The negative net is the "benefit of the bargain” Harris negotiated with UB and was in no way under the control of Peters and, consequently, it is a loss that does not flow directly from the tort committed by Peters and is therefore, not recoverable.

In light of the foregoing, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.

Affirmed.

RIZZI and CERDA, JJ., concur.

Justice Thomas

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Section 504(e) of the Copyright Act of 1976 permits a copyright owner “to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages ..., in a sum of not less than $500 or more than $20,000 as the court considers just.” 90Stat. 2585, as amended, 17 U. S. C. § 504(c)(1). In this case, we consider whether § 504(e) or the Seventh Amendment grants a right to a jury trial when a copyright owner elects to recover statutory damages. We hold that although the statute is silent on the point, the Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial, which includes a right to a jury determination of the amount of statutory damages. We therefore reverse.

I

Petitioner C. Elvin Feltner owns Krypton International Corporation, which in 1990 acquired three television stations in the southeastern United States. Respondent Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., had licensed several television series to these stations, including “Who’s the Boss,” “Silver Spoons,” “Hart to Hart,” and “T. J. Hooker.” After the stations became delinquent in making their royalty payments to Columbia, Krypton and Columbia entered into negotiations to restructure the stations’ debt. These discussions were unavailing, and Columbia terminated the stations’ li*343cense agreements in October 1991. Despite Columbia’s termination, the stations continued broadcasting the programs.

Columbia sued Feltner, Krypton, the stations, various Krypton subsidiaries, and certain Krypton officers in Federal District Court alleging, inter alia, copyright infringement arising from the stations’ unauthorized broadcasting of the programs. Columbia sought various forms of relief under the Copyright Act of 1976 (Copyright Act), 17 U. S. C. § 101 et seq., including a permanent injunction, § 502; impoundment of all copies of the programs, § 503; actual damages or, in the alternative, statutory damages, §504; and costs and attorney’s fees, § 505. On Columbia’s motion, the District Court entered partial summary judgment as to liability for Columbia on its copyright infringement claims.1

Columbia exercised the option afforded by § 504(c) of the Copyright Act to recover “Statutory Damages” in lieu of actual damages. In relevant part, § 504(c) provides:

“Statutory Damages—

“(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work,... in a sum of not less than $500 or more than $20,000 as the court considers just....

“(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $100,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of *344copyright, the court [in] its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200....” 17 U. S. C. § 504(c).

The District Court denied Feltner’s request for a jury trial on statutory damages, ruling instead that such issues would be determined at a bench trial. After two days of trial, the trial judge held that each episode of each series constituted a separate work and that the airing of the same episode by different stations controlled by Feltner constituted separate violations; accordingly, the trial judge determined that there had been a total of 440 acts of infringement. The trial judge further found that Feltner’s infringement was willful and fixed statutory damages at $20,000 per act of infringement. Applying that amount to the number of acts of infringement, the trial judge determined that Columbia was entitled to $8,800,000 in statutory damages, plus costs and attorney’s fees.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in all relevant respects. Columbia Pictures Television v. Krypton Broadcasting of Birmingham, Inc., 106 F. 3d 284 (1997).2 Most importantly for present purposes, the court rejected Feltner’s argument that he was entitled to have a jury determine statutory damages. Relying on Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 562 F. 2d 1157 (CA9 1977) — which held that § 25(b) of the Copyright Act of 1909, the statutory predecessor of § 504(c), required the trial judge to assess statutory damages3 — the Court of *345Appeals held that § 504(e) does not grant a right to a jury determination of statutory damages. The court reasoned that “[i]f Congress intended to overrule Krofft by having the jury determine the proper award of statutory damages, it would have altered” the language “as the court considers just” in § 504(e). 106 F. 3d, at 293. The Court of Appeals further concluded that the “Seventh Amendment does not provide a right to a jury trial on the issue of statutory damages because an award of such damages is equitable in nature.” Ibid. We granted certiorari. 521 U. S. 1151 (1997).

II

Before inquiring into the applicability of the Seventh Amendment, we must “'first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the [constitutional] question may be avoided.5” Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412, 417, n. 3 (1987) (quoting Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 192, n. 6 (1974)). Sueh a construction is not possible here, for we cannot discern “any congressional intent to grant... the right to a jury trial,” 481 U. S., at 417, n. 3, on an award of statutory damages.4

The language of § 504(c) does not grant a right to have a jury assess statutory damages. Statutory damages are to be assessed in an amount that “the court considers just.55 § 504(e)(1). Further, in the event that “the court finds” the infringement was willful or innocent, “the court in its discretion” may, within limits, increase or decrease the amount of *346statutory damages. § 504(c)(2). These phrases, like the entire statutory provision, make no mention of a right to a jury trial or, for that matter, to juries at all.

The word “court” in this context appears to mean judge, not jury. Cf. F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc., 344 U. S. 228, 232 (1952) (referring to the “judicial discretion” necessary for “the court’s choice between a computed measure of damage and that imputed by” the Copyright Act of 1909 (emphasis added)). In fact, the other remedies provisions of the Copyright Act use the term “court” in contexts generally thought to confer authority on a judge, rather than a jury. See, e. g., § 502 (“court... may . . . grant temporary and final injunctions”); § 503(a) (“[T]he court may order the impounding... of all copies or phonorec-ords”); § 503(b) (“As part of a final judgment or decree, the court may order the destruction or other reasonable disposition of all copies or phonorecords”); § 505 (“[Tjhe court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs” of litigation, and “the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee”). In contrast, the Copyright Act does not use the term “court” in the subsection addressing awards of actual damages and profits, see § 504(b), which generally are thought to constitute legal relief. See Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U. S. 469, 477 (1962) (action for damages for trademark infringement “subject to cognizance by a court of law”); see also Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F. 2d 464, 468 (CA2 1946) (copyright action for damages is “triable at ‘law5 and by a jury as of right”); Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 925 F. 2d 1010, 1014 (CA7 1991) (“little question that the right to a jury tidal exists in a copyright infringement action when the copyright owner endeavors to prove and recover its actual damages”); 3 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 12.10[B] (1997) (“beyond dispute that a plaintiff who seeks to recover actual damages is entitled to a jury trial” (footnotes omitted)).

*347Feltner relies on Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575, 585 (1978), in which we held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 602, 29 U. S. C. § 621 et seq., provides a statutory right to a jury trial in an action for unpaid wages even though the statute authorizes “the court... to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate,” § 626(b). That holding, however, turned on two crucial factors: The ADEA’s remedial provisions were expressly to be enforced in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 101 et seq., which had been uniformly interpreted to provide a right to a jury trial, Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S., at 580-581; and the statute used the word “legal,” which we found to be a “term of art” used in cases “in which legal relief is available and legal rights are determined” by juries, id., at 583. Section 504(c), in contrast, does not make explicit reference to another statute that has been uniformly interpreted to provide a right to jury trial and does not use the word “legal” or other language denoting legal relief or rights.5

We thus discern no statutory right to a jury trial when a copyright owner elects to recover statutory damages. Accordingly, we must reaeh the constitutional question.

Ill

The Seventh Amendment provides that “[i]n Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. . . .” U. S. Const., Arndt. 7. Since Justice Story’s time, the Court *348has understood “Suits at common law” to refer “not merely [to] suits, which the common law recognized among its old and settled proceedings, but [to] suits in which legal rights were to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable rights alone were recognized, and equitable remedies were administered.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 447 (1830) (emphasis in original). The Seventh Amendment thus applies not only to common-law causes of action, but also to “actions brought to enforce statutory rights that are analogous to common-law causes of action ordinarily decided in English law courts in the late 18th century, as opposed to those customarily heard by courts of equity or admiralty.” Granfinanciera, S. A. v. Nordberg, 492 U. S. 33, 42 (1989) (citing Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S., at 193). To determine whether a statutory action is more analogous to cases tried in courts of law than to suits tried in courts of equity or admiralty, we examine both the nature of the statutory action and the remedy sought. See 492 U. S., at 42.

Unlike many of our recent Seventh Amendment eases, which have involved modern statutory rights unknown to 18th-century England, see, e.g., Wooddell v. Electrical Workers, 502 U. S. 93 (1991) (alleged violations of union’s duties under Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959); Granfinanciera v. Nordberg, supra (action to rescind fraudulent preference under Bankruptcy Act); Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412 (1987) (Government’s claim for civil penalties under Clean Water Act); Curtis v. Loether, supra (claim under Title VIII of Civil Rights Act of 1968), in this case there are close analogues to actions seeking statutory damages under § 504(c). Before the adoption of the Seventh Amendment, the common law and statutes in England and this country granted copyright owners causes of action for infringement. More importantly, copyright suits for mone*349tary damages were tried in courts of law, and thus before juries.

By the middle of the 17th century, the common law recognized an author’s right to prevent the unauthorized publication of his manuscript. See, e. g., Stationers Co. v. Patentees, Carter’s Rep. 89, 124 Eng. Rep. 842 (C. P. 1666). This protection derived from the principle that the manuscript was the product of intellectual labor and was as much the author’s property as the material on which it was written. See Millar v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2303, 2398, 98 Eng. Rep. 201, 252 (K. B. 1769) (opinion of Mansfield, C. J.) (common-law copyright derived from principle that “it is just, that an Author should reap the pecuniary Profits of his own ingenuity and Labour”); 1 W. Patry, Copyright Law and Practice 3 (1994). Actions seeking damages for infringement of common-law copyright, like actions seeking damages for invasions of other property rights, were tried in courts of law in actions on the ease. See Millar v. Taylor, supra, at 2396-2397, 98 Eng. Rep., at 251. Actions on the ease, like other actions at law, were tried before juries. See McClenachan v. McCarty, 1 Dall. 375, 378 (C. P. Phila. Cty. 1788); 5 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶38.11[5] (2d ed. 1996); 1 J. Chitty, Treatise on Pleading and Parties to Actions 164 (1892).

In 1710, the first English copyright statute, the Statute of Anne, was enacted to protect published books. 8 Anne eh. 19 (1710). Under the Statute of Anne, damages for infringement were set at “one Penny for every Sheet which shall be found in [the infringer’s] custody, either printed or printing, published, or exposed to Sale,” half (“one Moiety”) to go to the Crown and half to the copyright owner, and were “to be recovered... by Action of Debt, Bill, Plaint, or Information.” §1. Like the earlier practice with regard to common-law copyright claims for damages, actions seeking damages under the Statute of Anne were tried in courts of law. See *350Beckford v. Hood, 7 T. R. 621, 627, 101 Eng. Rep. 1164, 1167 (K. B. 1798) (opinion of Kenyon, C. J.) C‘[T]he statute having vested that right in the author, the common law gives the remedy by action on the case for the violation of it”).

The practice of trying copyright damages actions at law before juries was followed in this .country, where statutory copyright protections were enacted even before adoption of the Constitution. In 1783, the Continental Congress passed a resolution recommending that the States secure copyright protections for authors. See U. S. Copyright Office, Copyright Enactments: Laws Passed in the United States Since 1783 Relating to Copyright, Bulletin No. 3, p. 1 (rev. ed. 1963) (hereinafter Copyright Enactments). Twelve States (all except Delaware) responded by enacting copyright statutes, each of which provided a cause of action for damages, and none of which made any reference to equity jurisdiction. At least three of these state statutes expressly stated that damages were to be recovered through actions at law, see id., at 2 (in Connecticut, damages for double the value of the infringed copy “to be recovered ... in any court of law in this State”); id., at 17 (in Georgia, similar damages enforceable “in due course of law”); id., at 19 (in New York, similar damages enforceable in “any court of law”), while four others provided that damages would be recovered in an “action of debt,” a prototypical action brought in a court of law before a jury. See F. Maitland, Forms of Action at Common Law 357 (1929) (hereinafter Maitland); see Copyright Enactments 4-9 (in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, damages enforceable by “action of debt”); id., at 12 (in South Carolina, damages of one shilling per sheet enforceable by .“debt, bill, plaint or information”). Although these statutes were short-lived, and hence few courts had occasion to interpret them, the available evidence suggests that the practice was for copyright actions seeking damages to be tried to a jury. See Hudson & Goodwin v. Patten, 1 Root 133, 134 *351(Conn. Super. Ct. 1789) (jury awarded copyright owner £100 under Connecticut copyright statute).

Moreover, three of the state statutes specifically authorized an award of damages from a statutory range, just as § 504(c) does today. See Copyright Enactments 4 (in Massachusetts, damages of not less than £5 and not more than £3,000); id., at 8 (in New Hampshire, damages of not less than £5 and not more than £1,000); id., at 9 (in Ehode Island, damages of not less than £5 and not more than £3,000). Although we have found no direct evidence of the practice under these statutes, there is no reason to suppose that such actions were intended to deviate from the traditional practice: The damages were to be recovered by an “action of debt,” see id., at 4-9, which was an action at law, see Mait-land 357.

In 1790, Congress passed the first federal copyright statute, the Copyright Act of 1790, which similarly authorized the awarding of damages for copyright infringements. Act of May 31,1790, eh. 15, §§2, 6,1 Stat. 124,125. The Copyright Act of 1790 provided that damages for copyright infringement of published works would be “the sum of fifty cents for every sheet which shall be found in [the infringer’s] possession,... to be recovered by action of debt in any court of record in the United States, wherein the same is cognizable.” §2. Like the Statute of Anne, the Copyright Act of 1790 provided that half (“one moiety”) of such damages were to go to the copyright owner and half to the United States. For infringement of an unpublished manuscript, the statute entitled a copyright owner to “all damages occasioned by such injury, to be recovered by a special action on the case founded upon this act, in any court having cognizance thereof.” § 6.

There is no evidence that the Copyright Act of 1790 changed the practice of trying copyright actions for damages in courts of law before juries. As we have noted, actions on the case and actions of debt were actions at law for which a *352jury was required. See supra, at 349, 350.6 Moreover, actions to recover damages under the Copyright Act of 1831— which differed from the Copyright Act of 1790 only in the amount (increased to $1 from 50 cents) authorized to be recovered for certain infringing sheets — were consistently tried to juries. See, e. g., Backus v. Gould, 7 How. 798, 802 (1849) (jury awarded damages of $2,069.75); Reed v. Carusi, 20 F. Cas. 431, 432 (No. 11,642) (CC Md. 1845) (jury awarded damages of $200); Millett v. Snowden, 17 F. Cas. 374, 375 (No. 9,600) (SDNY 1844) (jury awarded damages of $625); Dwight v. Appleton, 8 F. Cas. 183, 185 (No. 4,215) (SDNY 1843) (jury awarded damages of $2,000).

Columbia does not dispute this historical evidence. In fact, Columbia makes no attempt to draw an analogy between an action for statutory damages under § 504(c) and any historical cause of action — including those actions for monetary relief that we have characterized as equitable, such as actions for disgorgement of improper profits. See Teamsters v. Terry, 494 U. S. 558, 570-571 (1990); Tull v. United States, 481 U. S., at 424. Rather, Columbia merely contends that statutory damages are clearly equitable in nature.

We are not persuaded. We have recognized the “general rule” that monetary relief is legal, Teamsters v. Terry, supra, at 570, and an award of statutory damages may serve purposes traditionally associated with legal relief, such as compensation and punishment. See Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S., at 196 (actual damages are “traditional form of relief offered in the courts of law”); Tull v. United States, 481 U. S., at 422 *353(“Remedies intended to punish culpable individuals ... were issued by courts of law, not courts of equity”). Nor, as we have previously stated, is a monetary remedy rendered equitable simply because it is “not fixed or readily calculable from a fixed formula.” Id., at 422, n. 7. And there is historical evidence that cases involving discretionary monetary relief were tried before juries. See, e. g., Coryell v. Colbaugh, 1 N. J. L. 77 (1791) (jury award of “exemplary damages” in an action on a promise of marriage). Accordingly, we must conclude that the Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial where the copyright owner elects to recover statutory damages.

The right to a jury trial includes the right to have a jury determine the amount of statutory damages, if any, awarded to the copyright owner. It has long been recognized that “by the law the jury are judges of the damages.” Lord Townshend v. Hughes, 2 Mod. 150, 151, 86 Eng. Rep. 994, 994-995 (C. P. 1677). Thus in Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U. S. 474 (1935), the Court stated that “the common law rule as it existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution” was that “in cases where the amount of damages was uncertain[,] their assessment was a matter so peculiarly within the province of the jury that the Court should not alter it.” Id., at 480 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). And there is overwhelming evidence that the consistent practice at common law was for juries to award damages. See, e. g., Duke of York v. Pilkington, 2 Show. 246, 89 Eng. Rep. 918 (K. B. 1760) (jury award of £100,000 in a slander action); Wilkes v. Wood, Lofft 1, 19, 98 Eng. Rep. 489, 499 (C. P. 1763) (jury award of £1,000 in an action of trespass); Huckle v. Money, 2 Wils. 205, 95 Eng. Rep. 768 (C. P. 1763) (upholding jury award of £300 in an action for trespass, assault and imprisonment); Genay v. Norris, 1 S. C. L. 6, 7 (1784) (jury award of £400); Coryell v. Colbaugh, supra (sustaining correctness of jury award of exemplary damages in an action on a promise of marriage); see also K. Redden, Punitive Dam*354ages § 2.2, p. 27 (1980) (describing “primacy of the jury in the awarding of damages”).

More specifically, this was the consistent practice in copyright cases. In Hudson & Goodwin v. Patten, 1 Root, at 134, for example, a jury awarded a copyright owner £100 under the Connecticut copyright statute, which permitted damages in an amount double the value of the infringed copy. In addition, juries assessed the amount of damages under the Copyright Act of 1831, even though that statute, like the Copyright Act of 1790, fixed damages at a set amount per infringing sheet. See Backus v. Gould, supra, at 802 (jury awarded damages of $2,069.75); Reed v. Carusi, supra, at 432 (same, but $200); Dwight v. Appleton, supra, at 185 (same, but $2,000); Millett v. Snowden, supra, at 375 (same, but $625).

Relying on Tull v. United States, supra, Columbia contends that the Seventh Amendment does not provide a right to a jury determination of the amount of the award. In Tull, we held that the Seventh Amendment grants a right to a jury trial on all issues relating to liability for civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. §§ 1251, 1319(d),7 see 481 U. S., at 425, but then went on to decide that Congress could constitutionally authorize trial judges to assess the amount of the civil penalties, see id., at 426-427.8 According to Columbia, Tull demonstrates that a jury determination of the amount of statutory damages is not necessary “to preserve ‘the substance of the common-law right of trial by jury.’ ” Id., at 426 (quoting Colgrove v. Battin, 413 U. S. 149, 157 (1973)).

*355In Tull, however, we were presented with no evidence that juries historically had determined the amount of civil penalties to be paid to the Government.9 Moreover, the awarding of civil penalties to the Government could be viewed as analogous to sentencing in a criminal proceeding. See 481 U. S., at 428 (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).10 Here, of course, there is no similar analogy, and there is clear and direct historical evidence that juries, both as a general matter and in copyright cases, set the amount of damages awarded to a successful plaintiff. Tull is thus inapposite. As a result, if a party so demands, a jury must determine the actual amount of statutory damages under § 504(e) in order “to preserve ‘the substance of the common-law right of trial by jury/ ” Id., at 426.

* % *

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages under § 504(e) of the Copyright Act, including the amount itself. The judgment below is reversed, and we remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Scalia,

concurring in the judgment.

It is often enough that we must hold an enactment of Congress to be unconstitutional. I see no reason to do so here— *356not because I believe that jury trial is not constitutionally required (I do not reach that issue), but because the statute can and therefore should be read to provide jury trial.

“[W]here a statute is susceptible of two constructions, by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise and by the other of which such questions are avoided, our duty is to adopt the latter.” United States ex rel. Attorney General v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366, 408 (1909). The Copyright Act of 1976 authorizes statutory damages for copyright infringement “in a sum of not less than $500 or more than $20,000 as the court considers just.” 17 U. S. C. § 504(c). The Court concludes that it is not “fairly possible,” ante, at 345 (internal quotation marks omitted), to read § 504(e) as authorizing jury determination of the amount of those damages. I disagree.

In common legal parlance, the word “court” can mean “[t]he judge or judges, as distinguished from the counsel or jury.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 611 (2d ed. 1949) (def. 10d). But it also has a broader meaning, which includes both judge and jury. See, e. g., ibid. (def. 10b: “The persons duly assembled under authority of law for the administration of justice”); Black’s Law Dictionary 318 (5th ed. 1979) (“. . . A body organized to administer justice, and including both judge and jury”). We held in Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U. S. 575 (1978), that a statute authorizing “the court ... to grant such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate,” 29 U. S. C. § 626(b), could fairly be read to afford a right to jury trial on claims for backpay under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

As the Court correctly observes, ante, at 347, there was more evidence in Lorillard than there is in the present case that “court” was being used to include the jury. The remedial provision at issue explicitly referred to the “‘powers, remedies, and procedures’ ” of the Fair Labor Standards Act, under which “it was well established that there was a right to a jury trial,” Lorillard, 434 U. S., at 580. The provision’s *357reference to “legal... relief” also strongly suggested a statutory right to jury trial. Id., at 583. The text of § 504(e) lacks such clear indications that “court” is being used in its broader sense. But their absence hardly demonstrates that the broader reading is not “fairly possible,” e.g., Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412, 417, n. 3 (1987). The only significant evidence cited by the Court for that proposition is that the “Copyright Act use[s] the term ‘court’ in contexts generally thought to confer authority on a judge, rather than a jury,” ante, at 346, but “does not use the term ‘court’ in the subsection addressing awards of actual damages and profits, see § 504(b), which generally are thought to constitute legal relief,” ibid. That is a fair observation, but it is not, in my view, probative enough to compel an interpretation that is constitutionally doubtful.

That is at least so in light of contradictory evidence from the statutory history, which the Court chooses to ignore. Section 504(e) is the direct descendant of a remedy created for unauthorized performance of dramatic compositions in an 1856 copyright statute. That statute provided for damages “not less than one hundred dollars for the first, and fifty dollars for every subsequent performance, as to the court having cognizance thereof shall appear to be just,” enforced through an “action on the ease or other equivalent remedy.” Act of Aug. 18, 1856, ch. 169, 11 Stat. 138, 139. Because actions on the ease were historically tried at law, it seems clear that this original statute permitted juries to assess such damages. See Lorillard, supra, at 583. Although subsequent revisions omitted the reference to “action[s] on the ease,” they carried forward the language specifying damages “as to the court shall appear to be just.” See Act of July 8,1870, ch. 230, § 101, 16 Stat. 214; Act of Jan. 6,1897, ch. 4, 29 Stat. 482. In 1909, Congress extended those provisions to permit all copyright owners to recover “in lieu of actual damages and profits such damages as to the court shall appear just....” Act of Mar. 4,1909, ch. 320, § 25(b), *35835 Stat. 1081. We have recognized that, although the prior statutory damages provisions

“were broadened [in 1909] so as to include other copyrights and the limitations were changed in amount,.. . the principle on which they proceeded — that of committing the amount of damages to be recovered to the court’s discretion and sense of justice, subject to prescribed limitations — was retained. The new provision, like one of the old, says the damages shall be such ‘as to the court shall appear to be just.’ ” L. A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co., 249 U. S. 100, 107 (1919).

If a right to jury trial was consistent with the meaning of the phrase “as to the court... shall appear to be just” in the 1856 statutory damages provision, I see no reason to insist that the phrase “as the court considers just” has a different meaning in that provision’s latest reenactment. “[Wlhere, as here, Congress adopts a new law incorporating sections of a prior law, Congress normally can be presumed to have had knowledge of the interpretation given to the incorporated law, at least insofar as it affects the new statute.” Lorillard, supra, at 581.

I do not contend that reading “court” to include “jury” is necessarily the best interpretation of this statutory text. The Court is perhaps correct that the indications pointing to a change in meaning from the 1856 statute predominate. As I have written elsewhere, howevez*:

“The doctrine of constitutional doubt does not require that the problem-avoiding construction be the preferable one — the one the Court would adopt in any event. Such a standard would deprive the doctrine of all function. ‘Adopt the interpretation that avoids the constitutional doubt if that is the right one’ produces precisely the same result as ‘adopt the right interpretation.’ Rather, the doctrine of constitutional doubt comes into play when the statute is ‘susceptible of’ the problem-*359avoiding interpretation, Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S., at 408 — when that interpretation is reasonable, though not necessarily the best.” Almendarez-Torres v. United States, ante, at 270 (dissenting opinion).

As the majority’s discussion amply demonstrates, there would be considerable doubt about the constitutionality of § 504(c) if it did not permit jury determination of the amount of statutory damages. Because an interpretation of § 504(e) that avoids the Seventh Amendment question is at least “fairly possible,” I would adopt that interpretation, prevent the invalidation of this statute, and reserve the constitutional issue for another day.

Justice Scalia

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented is whether § 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 891, 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(3) (1994 ed.), authorizes this action by petitioners to enforce a reimbursement provision of an ERISA plan.

*207HH

Respondent Janette Knudson was rendered quadriplegic by a car accident in June 1992. Because her then-husband, respondent Eric Knudson, was employed by petitioner Earth Systems, Inc., Janette was covered by the Health and Welfare Plan for Employees and Dependents of Earth Systems, Inc. (Plan). The Plan covered $411,157.11 of Janette’s medical expenses, of which all except $75,000 was paid by petitioner Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Co. pursuant to a “stop-loss” insurance agreement with the Plan.

The Plan includes a reimbursement provision that is the basis for the present lawsuit. This provides that the Plan shall have “the right to recover from the [beneficiary] any payment for benefits” paid by the Plan that the beneficiary is entitled to recover from a third party. App. 58. Specifically, the Plan has “a first lien upon any recovery, whether by settlement, judgment or otherwise,” that the beneficiary receives from the third party, not to exceed “the amount of benefits paid [by the Plan] . . . [or] the amount received by the [beneficiary] for such medical treatment. . . .” Id,., at 58-59. If the beneficiary recovers from a third party and fails to reimburse the Plan, “then he will be personally liable to [the Plan] ... up to the amount of the first lien.” Id., at 59. Pursuant to an agreement between the Plan and Great-West, the Plan “assigned] to Great-West all of its rights to make, litigate, negotiate, settle, compromise, release or waive” any claim under the reimbursement provision. Id., at 45.

In late 1993, the Knudsons filed a tort action in California state court seeking to recover from Hyundai Motor Company, the manufacturer of the car they were riding in at the time of the accident, and other alleged tortfeasors. The parties to that action negotiated a $650,000 settlement, a notice of which was mailed to Great-West. This allocated $256,745.30 to a Special Needs Trust under Cal. Prob. Code Ann. §3611 (West 1991 and Supp. 1993) to provide for *208Janette’s medical care; $373,426 to attorney’s fees and costs; $5,000 to reimburse the California Medicaid program (MediCal); and $13,828.70 (the portion of the settlement attributable to past medical expenses) to satisfy Great-West’s claim under the reimbursement provision of the Plan.

The day before the hearing scheduled for judicial approval of the settlement, Great-West, calling itself a defendant and asserting that the state-court action involved federal claims related to ERISA, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California a notice of removal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1441 (1994 ed.). That court concluded that Great-West was not a defendant and could not remove the case, and therefore remanded to the state court, which approved the settlement. The state court’s order provided that the defendants would pay the settlement amount allocated to the Special Needs Trust directly to the trust, and the remaining amounts to respondents’ attorney, who, in turn, would tender checks to Medi-Cal and Great-West.

Great-West, however, never cashed the check it received from respondents’ attorney. Instead, at the same time that Great-West sought to remove the state-law tort action, it filed this action in the same federal court (the United States District Court for the Central District of California), seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under § 502(a)(3) to enforce the reimbursement provision of the Plan by requiring the Knudsons to pay the Plan $411,157.11 of any proceeds recovered from third parties. Great-West subsequently filed an amended complaint adding Earth Systems and the Plan as plaintiffs and seeking a temporary restraining order against continuation of the state-court proceedings for approval of the settlement. The District Court denied the temporary restraining order, a ruling that petitioners did not appeal. After the state court approved the settlement and the money was disbursed, the District Court granted summary judgment to the Knudsons. It held that the language of the Plan limited its right of reimbursement to the amount received by *209respondents from third parties for past medical treatment, an amount that the state court determined was $13,828.70. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed on different grounds. Judgt. order reported at 208 F. 3d 221 (2000). Citing FMC Medical Plan v. Owens, 122 F. 3d 1258 (CA9 1997), it held that judicially decreed reimbursement for payments made to a beneficiary of an insurance plan by a third party is not equitable relief and is therefore not authorized by § 502(a)(3). We granted certiorari. 531 U. S. 1124 (2001).

II

We have observed repeatedly that ERISA is a “ ‘comprehensive and reticulated statute,’ the product of a decade of congressional study of the Nation’s private employee benefit system.” Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U. S. 248, 251 (1993) (quoting Nachman Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 446 U. S. 359, 361 (1980)). We have therefore been especially “reluctant to tamper with [the] enforcement scheme” embodied in the statute by extending remedies not specifically authorized by its text. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Russell, 473 U. S. 134, 147 (1985). Indeed, we have noted that ERISA’s “carefully crafted and detailed enforcement scheme provides ‘strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly.’” Mertens, supra, at 254 (quoting Russell, supra, at 146-147).

Section 502(a)(3) authorizes a civil action:

“by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary (A) to enjoin any act or practice which violates . . . the terms of the plan, or (B) to obtain other appropriate equitable relief (i) to redress such violations or (ii) to enforce any provisions of . . . the terms of the plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(3) (1994 ed.).

As we explained in Mertens, “ ‘[e]quitable’ relief must mean something less than all relief.” 508 U. S., at 258, n. 8. *210Thus, in Mertens we rejected a reading of the statute that would extend the relief obtainable under § 502(a)(3) to whatever relief a court of equity is empowered to provide in the particular case at issue (which could include legal remedies that would otherwise be beyond the scope of the equity court’s authority). Such a reading, we said, would “limit the relief not at all” and “render the modifier [‘equitable’] superfluous.” Id., at 257-258. Instead, we held that the term “equitable relief” in § 502(a)(3) must refer to “those categories of relief that were typically available in equity . . . Id., at 256.

Here, petitioners seek, in essence, to impose personal liability on respondents for a contractual obligation to pay money — relief that was not typically available in equity. “A claim for money due and owing under a contract is ‘quintessentially an action at law.’” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wells, 213 F. 3d 398, 401 (CA7 2000) (Posner, J.). “Almost invariably . . . suits seeking (whether by judgment, injunction, or declaration) to compel the defendant to pay a sum of money to the plaintiff are suits for ‘money damages,’ as that phrase has traditionally been applied, since they seek no more than compensation for loss resulting from the defendant’s breach of legal duty.” Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U. S. 879, 918-919 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). And “[m]oney damages are, of course, the classic form of legal relief.” Mertens, supra, at 255.

Nevertheless, petitioners, along with their amicus the United States, struggle to characterize the relief sought as “equitable” under the standard set by Mertens. We are not persuaded.

A

First, petitioners argue that they are entitled to relief under § 502(a)(3)(A) because they seek “to enjoin a[n] act or practice” — respondents’ failure to reimburse the Plan— “which violates . . . the terms of the plan.” But an injunction to compel the payment of money past due under a con*211tract, or specific performance of a past due monetary obligation, was not typically available in equity.1 See, e.g., 3 Restatement (Second) of Contracts §359 (1979); 3 Dobbs § 12.8(2), at 199; 5A A. Corbin, Contracts § 1142, p. 119 (1964) (hereinafter Corbin). Those rare cases in which a court of equity would decree specific performance of a contract to transfer funds were suits that, unlike the present case, sought to prevent future losses that either were incalculable or would be greater than the sum awarded. For example, specific performance might be available to enforce an agreement to lend money “when the unavailability of alternative financing would leave the plaintiff with injuries that are difficult to value; or to enforce an obligor’s duty to make future monthly payments, after the obligor had consistently refused to make past payments concededly due, and thus threatened the obligee with the burden of bringing multiple damages actions.” Bowen, supra, at 918 (Scalia, J., dissenting). See also 3 Dobbs § 12.8(2), at 200; 5A Corbin §1142, at 117-118. Typically, however, specific performance of a contract to pay money was not available in equity.

*212Bowen v. Massachusetts, supra, upon which petitioners rely, is not to the contrary. We held in Bowen that the provision of the Administrative Procedure Act that precludes actions seeking “money damages” against federal agencies, 5 U. S. C. § 702, does not bar a State from seeking specific relief to obtain money to which it claims entitlement under the federal Medicaid statute, 42 U. S. C. § 1396b(d) (1994 ed. and Supp. V). Bowen “did not turn on distinctions between ‘equitable’ actions and other actions . . . but rather [on] what Congress meant by ‘other than money damages’ ” in the Administrative Procedure Act. Department of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U. S. 255, 261 (1999). Furthermore, Bowen, unlike petitioners’ claim, did not deal with specific performance of a contractual obligation to pay past due sums. Rather, Massachusetts claimed not only that the Federal Government failed to reimburse it for past expenses pursuant to a statutory obligation, but that the method the Federal Government used to calculate reimbursements would lead to underpayments in the future. Thus, the suit was not merely for past due sums, but for an injunction to correct the method of calculating payments going forward. Bowen, supra, at 889. Bowen has no bearing on the unavailability of an injunction to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money past due.

B

Second, petitioners argue that their suit is authorized by § 502(a)(3)(B) because they seek restitution, which they characterize as a form of equitable relief. However, not all relief falling under the rubric of restitution is available in equity. In the days of the divided bench, restitution was available in certain cases at law, and in certain others in equity. See, e.g., 1 Dobbs §1.2, at 11; id,., §4.1(1), at 556; id., §4.1(3), at 564-565; id., §§ 42-4.3, at 570-624; 5 Corbin §1102, at 550; Muir, ERISA Remedies: Chimera or Congressional Compromise?, 81 Iowa L. Rev. 1, 36-37 (1995); Redish, Seventh Amendment Right to Jury Trial: A Study in the Irrationality *213of Rational Decision Making, 70 Nw. U. L. Rev. 486, 528 (1975). Thus, “restitution is a legal remedy when ordered in a case at law and an equitable remedy ... when ordered in an equity case,” and whether it is legal or equitable depends on “the basis for [the plaintiff’s] claim” and the nature of the underlying remedies sought. Reich v. Continental Casualty Co., 33 F. 3d 754, 756 (CA7 1994) (Posner, J.).

In cases in which the plaintiff “could not assert title or right to possession of particular property, but in which nevertheless he might be able to show just grounds for recovering money to pay for some benefit the defendant had received from him,” the plaintiff had a right to restitution at law through an action derived from the common-law writ of assumpsit. 1 Dobbs § 4.2(1), at 571. See also Muir, supra, at 37. In such cases, the plaintiff’s claim was considered legal because he sought “to obtain a judgment imposing a merely personal liability upon the defendant to pay a sum of money.” Restatement of Restitution § 160, Comment a, pp. 641-642 (1936). Such claims were viewed essentially as actions at law for breach of contract (whether the contract was actual or implied).

In contrast, a plaintiff could seek restitution in equity, ordinarily in the form of a constructive trust or an equitable lien, where money or property identified as belonging in good conscience to the plaintiff could clearly be traced to particular funds or property in the defendant’s possession. See 1 Dobbs § 4.3(1), at 587-588; Restatement of Restitution, supra, § 160, Comment a, at 641-642; 1 G. Palmer, Law of Restitution § 1.4, p. 17; § 3.7, p. 262 (1978). A court of equity could then order a defendant to transfer title (in the case of the constructive trust) or to give a security interest (in the case of the equitable lien) to a plaintiff who was, in the eyes of equity, the true owner. But where “the property [sought to be recovered] or its proceeds have been dissipated so that no product remains, [the plaintiff’s] claim is only that of a general creditor,” and the plaintiff “cannot enforce a con*214structive trust of or an equitable lien upon other property of the [defendant].” Restatement of Restitution, supra, § 215, Comment a, at 867. Thus, for restitution to lie in equity, the action generally must seek not to impose personal liability on the defendant, but to restore to the plaintiff particular funds or property in the defendant’s possession.2

Here, the funds to which petitioners claim an entitlement under the Plan’s reimbursement provision — the proceeds from the settlement of respondents’ tort action — are not in respondents’ possession. As the order of the state court approving the settlement makes clear, the disbursements from the settlement were paid by two checks, one made payable to the Special Needs Trust and the other to respondents’ attorney (who, after deducting his own fees and costs, placed the remaining funds in a client trust account from which he tendered checks to respondents’ other creditors, Great-West and Medi-Cal). The basis for petitioners’ claim is not that respondents hold particular funds that, in good conscience, belong to petitioners, but that petitioners are contractually entitled to some funds for benefits that they conferred. The kind of restitution that petitioners seek, therefore, is not equitable — the imposition of a constructive trust or equitable lien on particular property — but legal — the imposition of personal liability for the benefits that they conferred upon respondents.

Admittedly, our cases have not previously drawn this fine distinction between restitution at law and restitution in equity, but neither have they involved an issue to which the *215distinction was relevant. In Mertens, we mentioned in dicta that “injunction, mandamus, and restitution” are categories of relief that were typically available in equity. 508 U. S., at 256 (emphasis added). Mertens, however, did not involve a claim for restitution at all; rather, we addressed the question whether a nonfiduciary who knowingly participates in the breach of a fiduciary duty imposed by ERISA is liable to the plan for compensatory damages. Id., at 249-250. Thus, as courts and commentators have noted, “all the [Supreme] Court meant [in Mertens and other cases] was that restitution, in contrast to damages, is a remedy commonly ordered in equity cases and therefore an equitable remedy in a sense in which damages, though occasionally awarded in equity cases, are not.” Reich v. Continental Casualty Co., 33 F. 3d, at 756. Mertens did not purport to change the well-settled principle that restitution is “not an exclusively equitable remedy,” and whether it is legal or equitable in a particular case (and hence whether it is authorized by § 502(a)(3)) remains dependent on the nature of the relief sought. 33 F. 3d, at 756. See also Muir, 81 Iowa L. Rev., at 36 (analyzing Mertens and explaining that “only equitable restitution will be available under Section 502(a)(3)”).

Likewise, in Harris Trust and Sav. Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc., 530 U. S. 238 (2000), we noted that “an action for restitution against a transferee of tainted plan assets” is “appropriate equitable relief” within the meaning of § 502(a)(3). Id., at 253. While we did not expressly distinguish between legal and equitable restitution, the nature of the relief we described in Harris Trust — a claim to specific property (or its proceeds) held by the defendant — accords with the restitution we describe as equitable today. Id., at 250 (“The trustee or beneficiaries may then maintain an action for restitution of the property (if not already disposed of) or disgorgement of proceeds (if already disposed of) . . .” (emphasis added)); id., at 250-251 (“Whenever the legal title to property is obtained through means or under *216circumstances ‘which render it unconscientious for the holder of the legal title to retain and enjoy the beneficial interest, equity impresses a constructive trust on the property thus acquired in favor of the one who is truly and equitably entitled to the same ...” (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

Justice Ginsburg’s dissent finds it dispositive that some restitutionary remedies were typically available in equity. In her view, the touchstone for distinguishing legal from equitable relief is the “substance of the relief requested,” post, at 228 — and since the “substantive” relief of restitution is typically available in equity, it is, she concludes, available under § 502(a)(3). It is doubtful, to begin with, that “restitution” — or at least restitution defined broadly enough to embrace those forms of restitution available at law — pertains to the substance of the relief rather than to the legal theory under which it is awarded. The “substance” of a money judgment is a compelled transfer of money; a money judgment/or restitution could be thought to identify a particular type of relief (rather than merely the theory on which relief is awarded) only if one were to limit restitution to the return of identifiable funds (or property) belonging to the plaintiff and held by the defendant — that is, to limit restitution to the form of restitution traditionally available in equity.

In any event, Justice Ginsburg’s approach, which looks only to the nature of the relief and not to the conditions that equity attached to its provision, logically leads to the same untenable conclusion reached by Justice Stevens’s dissent — which is that § 502(a)(3)(A)’s explicit authorization of injunction, which it identifies as a form of equitable relief, permits (what equity would never permit) an injunction against failure to pay a simple indebtedness — or, for that matter, an injunction against failure to pay punitive damages. The problem with that conclusion, of course, is that it renders the statute’s limitation of relief to “[injunction] . . . or other appropriate equitable relief” utterly pointless. It *217is easy to disparage the law-equity dichotomy as “an ancient classification,” post, at 224 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.), and an “obsolete distinctio[n],” post, at 222 (opinion of Stevens, J.). Like it or not, however, that classification and distinction has been specified by the statute; and there is no way to give the specification meaning — indeed, there is no way to render the unmistakable limitation of the statute a limitation at all— except by adverting to the differences between law and equity to which the statute refers. The dissents greatly exaggerate, moreover, the difficulty of that task. Congress felt comfortable referring to equitable relief in this statute — as it has in many others3 — precisely because the basic contours of the term are well known. Rarely will there be need for any more “antiquarian inquiry,” post, at 233-234 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.), than consulting, as we have done, standard current works such as Dobbs, Palmer, Corbin, and the Restatements, which make the answer clear. It is an inquiry, moreover, that we are accustomed to pursuing, and will always have to pursue, in other contexts. See, e.g., Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U. S. 308, 318 (1999) (powers of federal courts under the Judiciary Act’s grant of jurisdiction over “all . . . suits in equity”); Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 192 (1974) (scope of the Seventh Amendment right to jury trial “[i]n suits at common law”). What will introduce a high degree of confusion into congressional use (and lawyers’ understanding) of the statutory term “equity” is the rolling revision of its content contemplated by the dissents.

Justice Stevens finds it “difficult... to understand why Congress would not have wanted to provide recourse in federal court for the plan violation disclosed by the record in this ease,” post, at 223. It is, however, not our job to find reasons for what Congress has plainly done; and it is our job to avoid rendering what Congress has plainly done (here, *218limit the available relief) devoid of reason and effect. If, as Justice Ginsburg surmises, post, at 234, Congress meant to rule out nothing more than “compensatory and punitive damages,” it could simply have said that. That Congress sought to achieve this result by subtle reliance upon the dissenters’ novel and expansive view of equity is most implausible.

Respecting Congress’s choice to limit the relief available under § 502(a)(3) to “equitable relief” requires us to recognize the difference between legal and equitable forms of restitution.4 Because petitioners seek only the former, their suit is not authorized by § 502(a)(3).

*219c

Third, the United States, as petitioners’ amicus, argues that the common law of trusts provides petitioners with equitable remedies that allow them to bring this action under § 502(a)(3). Analogizing respondents to beneficiaries of a trust, the United States argues that a trustee could bring a suit to enforce an agreement by a beneficiary to pay money into a trust or to repay an advance made from the trust. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 17-19 (citing Restatement (Second) of Trusts §§252, 255 (1959) (hereinafter Restatement of Trusts)). These trust remedies are simply inapposite. In Mertens, we rejected the claim that the special equity-court powers applicable to trusts define the reach of § 502(a)(3). Instead, we held that the term “equitable relief” in § 502(a)(3) must refer to “those categories of relief that were typically available in equity . . . .” 508 U. S., at 256. In any event, the cited sections of the Restatément, by their terms, merely allow a trustee to charge the beneficiary’s interest in the trust in order to capture money owed. See Restatement of Trusts § 252 (“If one of the bene*220ficiaries of a trust contracts to pay money to the trustee to be held as part of the trust estate and he fails to make the payment, his beneficial interest is subject to a charge for the amount of his liability”); id., § 255 (“If the trustee makes an advance or loan of trust money to a beneficiary, the beneficiary’s interest is subject to a charge for the repayment of the amount advanced or lent”). These setoff remedies do not give the trustee a separate equitable cause of action for payment from other moneys.

I — » I — I

In the end, petitioners ask us to interpret § 502(a)(3) so as to prevent them “from being deprived of any remedy under circumstances where such a result clearly would be inconsistent with a primary purpose of ERISA,” namely, the enforcement of the terms of a plan. See Brief for Petitioners 30-31. We note, though it is not necessary to our decision, that there may have been other means for petitioners to obtain the essentially legal relief that they seek. We express no opinion as to whether petitioners could have intervened in the state-court tort action brought by respondents or whether a direct action by petitioners against respondents asserting state-law claims such as breach of contract would have been pre-empted by ERISA. Nor do we decide whether petitioners could have obtained equitable relief against respondents’ attorney and the trustee of the Special Needs Trust, since petitioners did not appeal the District Court’s denial of their motion to amend their complaint to add these individuals as codefendants.

We need not decide these issues because, as we explained in Mertens, “[e]ven assuming ... that petitioners are correct about the pre-emption of previously available state-court actions” or the lack of other means to obtain relief, “vague notions of a statute’s ‘basic purpose’ are nonetheless inadequate to overcome the words of its text regarding the specific issue under consideration.” 508 U. S., at 261. In the *221very same section of ERISA as § 502(a)(3), Congress authorized “a participant or beneficiary” to bring a civil action “to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan,” without reference to whether the relief sought is legal or equitable. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) (1994 ed.). But Congress did not extend the same authorization to fiduciaries. Rather, § 502(a)(3), by its terms, only allows for equitable relief. We will not attempt to adjust the “carefully crafted and detailed enforcement scheme” embodied in the text that Congress has adopted.5 Mertens, supra, at 254. Because petitioners are seeking legal relief — the imposition of personal liability on respondents for a contractual obligation to pay money— § 502(a)(3) doés not authorize this action. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

In her lucid dissent, which I join, Justice Ginsburg has explained why it is fanciful to assume that in 1974 Congress *222intended to revive the obsolete distinctions between law and equity as a basis for defining the remedies available in federal court for violations of the terms of a plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). She has also convincingly argued that the relief sought in the present case is permissible even under the Court's favored test for determining what qualifies as “equitable relief” under § 502(a)(3)(B) of ERISA. I add this postscript because I am persuaded that Congress intended the word “enjoin,” as used in § 502(a)(3)(A), to authorize any appropriate order that prohibits or terminates a violation of an ERISA plan, regardless of whether a precedent for such an order can be found in English Chancery cases.

I read the word “other” in § 502(a)(3)(B) as having been intended to enlarge, not contract, a federal judge’s remedial authority. Consequently, and contrary to the Court’s view in Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U. S. 248, 256 (1993), I would neither read § 502(a)(3)(B) as placing a limitation on a judge’s authority under § 502(a)(3)(A), nor shackle an analysis of what constitutes “equitable relief” under § 502(a)(3)(B) to the sort of historical analysis that the Court has chosen.

Nevertheless, Mertens is the law, and an inquiry under § 502(a)(3)(B) now entails an analysis of what relief would have been “typically available in equity.” 508 U. S., at 256. This does not mean, however, that all inquiries under § 502(a)(3) must involve historical analysis, as the Court seems to believe, e.g., ante, at 209-210. In Mertens, our task was to interpret “other appropriate equitable relief” under § 502(a)(3)(B), and our holding thus did not extend to the meaning of “to enjoin” in § 502(a)(3)(A). As a result, an analysis of tradition is unnecessary with respect to § 502(a)(3)(A). Moreover, that section provides a proper basis for federal jurisdiction in the present case, as petitioners brought suit “to enjoin any act or practice which violates ... the terms of [a] plan.” § 502(a)(3)(A).

*223Not only is an inclusive reading of § 502(a)(8) consonant with the text of the statute, but it accomplishes Congress’ goal of providing a federal remedy for violations of the terms of plans governed by ERISA. Contrary to the Court’s current reluctance to conclude that wrongs should be remedied,1 I believe that the historic presumption favoring the provision of remedies for violations of federal rights2 should inform our construction of the remedial provisions of federal statutes. It is difficult for me to understand why Congress would not have wanted to provide recourse in federal court for the plan violation disclosed by the record in this case. Cf., e. g., Varity Cory. v. Howe, 516 U. S. 489, 512-513, 515 (1996) (“We are not aware of any ERISA-related purpose that denial of a remedy would serve”). It is thus unsurprising that the Court’s opinion contains no discussion of why Congress would have intended its reading of § 502(a)(3) and the resulting denial of a federal remedy in this case. Absent such discussion, the Court’s opinion is remarkably unpersuasive.3

I respectfully dissent.

*224Justice Ginsburg,

with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

Today’s holding, the majority declares, is compelled by “Congress’s choice to limit the relief available under § 502(a)(3).” Ante, at 218. In the Court’s view, Congress’ placement of the word “equitable” in that provision signaled an intent to exhume the “fine distinction[s]” borne of the “days of the divided bench,” ante, at 212,214; to treat as dis-positive an ancient classification unrelated to the substance of the relief sought; and to obstruct the general goals of ERISA by relegating to state court (or to no court at all) an array of suits involving the interpretation of employee health plan provisions. Because it is plain that Congress made no such “choice,” I dissent.

I

The Court purports to resolve this case by determining the “nature of the relief” Great-West seeks. Ante, at 215. The opinion’s analysis, however, trains on the question, deemed subsidiary, whether the disputed claim could have been brought in an equity court “[i]n the days of the divided bench.” Ante, at 212-216 (inquiring whether the claim is akin to “an action derived from the common-law writ of as-sumpsit” that would have been brought at law, or instead resembles a claim for return of particular assets that would “lie in equity”). To answer that question, the Court scrutinizes the form of the claim and contrasts its features with the technical requirements that once governed the jurisdictional divide between the premerger courts. Finding no clear match on the equitable side of the line, the Court concludes that Great-West’s claim is beyond the scope of § 502(a)(3) and therefore outside federal jurisdiction.

The rarified rules underlying this rigid and time-bound conception of the term “equity” were hardly at the fingertips of those who enacted § 502(a)(3). By 1974, when ERISA became law, the “days of the divided bench” were a fading memory, for that era had ended nearly 40 years earlier with *225the advent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Those rules instruct: "There shall be one form of action” cognizable in the federal courts. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 2. Except where reference to historical practice might be necessary to preserve a right established before the merger, see, e. g., Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 195 (1974) (Seventh Amendment jury trial), the doctrinal rules delineating the boundaries of the divided courts had receded. See 4 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §1041, p. 135 (1987); C. Wright, Handbook on Law of Federal Courts § 67, p. 282 (2d ed. 1970) (“[instances in which the old distinctions continue to rule from their graves are quite rare.”).

It is thus fanciful to attribute to Members of the 93d Congress familiarity with those “needless and obsolete distinctions,” 4 Wright & Miller, supra, § 1041, at 131, much less a deliberate “choice” to resurrect and import them wholesale into the modern regulatory scheme laid out in ERISA. “[T]here is nothing to suggest that ERISA’s drafters wanted to embed their work in a time warp.” Health Cost Controls of Ill. v. Washington, 187 F. 3d 703, 711 (CA7 1999) (Posner, J.); cf. Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U. S. 248, 257, n. 7 (1993) (meaning of “equitable relief” in § 502(a)(3) must be determined based on “the state of the law when ERISA was enacted”).

That Congress did not intend to strap § 502(a)(3) with the anachronistic rules on which the majority relies is corroborated by the anomalous results to which the supposed legislative “choice” leads. Although the Court recognizes that it need not decide the issue, see ante, at 220, its opinion surely contemplates that a constructive trust claim would lie; hence, the outcome of this case would be different if Great-West had sued the trustee of the Special Needs Trust, who has “possession” of the requested funds, instead of the Knudsons, who do not. See ante, at 214 (constructive trust unavailable because “the funds to whieh petitioners claim an entitlement... are not in respondents’ possession”). Under *226that view, whether relief is “equitable” would turn entirely on the designation of the defendant, even though the substance of the relief Great-West could have obtained in a suit against the trustee — a judgment ordering the return of wrongfully withheld funds — is identical to the relief Great-West in fact sought from the Knudsons. Unlike today’s majority, I resist this “rule unjustified in reason, which produces different results for breaches of duty in situations that cannot be differentiated in policy.” Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc., 398 U. S. 375, 405 (1970).

The procedural history of this case highlights the anomaly of upholding a judgment neither party supports,1 one that will at least protract and perhaps preclude judicial resolution of the nub of the controversy — i. e., what recoupment does the Plan’s reimbursement provision call for. Great-West named the Knudsons as defendants before Janet Knudson’s Special Needs Trust had been approved. There was no other defendant then in the picture. Seeking at that time to preserve the status quo, Great-West requested from the District Court preliminary injunctive relief to stop the Knudsons from disposing of the funds Hyundai paid to settle the state-court action. Only after the District Court denied that relief did the state court approve of, and order that the settlement funds be paid into, the Special Needs Trust. Great-West then moved for leave to amend its complaint to add the trustee as a defendant, but the District Court denied *227that motion without consideration in light of its judgment for the Knudsons on the merits. Had the District Court ruled differently on this peripheral issue, the majority would presumably reverse rather than affirm a disposition of this case that left in limbo the meaning of the Plan’s reimbursement provision. If that is so, then the Court’s decision rests on Great-West’s failure to appeal an interlocutory issue made moot by the District Court’s final judgment, an issue that, to all involved, must have seemed utterly inconsequential post judgment day.

The majority’s avowed obedience to Congress’ “choice” is further belied by the conflict between the Court’s holding and Congress’ stated goals in enacting ERISA. After today, ERISA plans and fiduciaries unable to fit their suits within the confines the Court’s opinion constructs are barred from a federal forum; they may seek enforcement of reimbursement provisions like the one here at issue only in state court. Many such suits may be precluded by antisubrogation laws, see Brief for Maryland HMO Subrogation Plaintiffs as Amici Curiae 4-5, n. 2, others may be preempted by ERISA itself, and those that survive may produce diverse and potentially contradictory interpretations of the disputed plan terms. „ ,

We have recognized that Congress sought through ERISA “to establish a uniform administrative scheme” and to ensure that plan provisions would be enforced in federal court, free of “the threat of conflicting or inconsistent State and local regulation.” Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U. S. 1, 9 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 120 Cong. Rec. 29933 (1974)). The majority’s construction frustrates those goals by ascribing to Congress the paradoxical intent to enact a specific provision, § 502(a)(3), that thwarts the purposes of the general scheme of which it is part. The Court is no doubt correct that “vague notions of a statute’s ‘basic purpose’ are . . . inadequate to overcome the words of its text regarding the specific issue under consideration.” *228Ante, at 220 (quoting Mertens, 508 U. S., at 261) (emphasis deleted). But when Congress’ clearly stated purpose so starkly conflicts with questionable inferences drawn from a single word in the statute, it is the latter, and not the former, that must give way.

It is particularly ironic that the majority acts in the name of equity as it sacrifices congressional intent and statutory purpose to archaic and unyielding doctrine. “Equity eschews mechanical rules; it depends on flexibility.” Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U. S. 392, 396 (1946). And “[a]s this Court long ago recognized, ‘there is inherent in the Courts of Equity a jurisdiction to ... give effect to the policy of the legislature.’ ” Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U. S. 288, 291-292 (1960) (quoting Clark v. Smith, 13 Pet. 195, 203 (1839)); see Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 417 (1975) (“[W]hen Congress invokes the Chancellor’s conscience to further transcendent legislative purposes, what is required is the principled application of standards- consistent with those purposes.”); cf. Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U. S. 308, 336 (1999) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (Court similarly “relie[d] on an unjustifiably static conception of equity jurisdiction”).

H-1 HH

Unprepared to agree that Congress chose to infuse § 502(a)(3) with the recondite distinctions on which the majority relies, I would accord a different meaning to the term “equitable.” Consistent with what Congress likely intended and with our decision in Mertens, I would look to the substance of the relief requested and ask whether relief of that character was “typically available in equity.” Mertens, 508 U. S., at 256. Great-West seeks restitution, a category of relief fully meeting that measure even if the remedy was also available in eases brought at law. Accordingly, I would not oust this case from the federal courts.

*229That Great-West requests restitution is beyond dispute. The relief would operate to transfer from the Knudsons funds over which Great-West claims to be the rightful owner. See Curtis, 415 U. S., at 197 (describing an award as restitu-tionary if it would “requir[e] the defendant to disgorge funds wrongfully withheld from the plaintiff”); Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U. S. 395, 402 (1946) (restitution encompasses a decree “ordering the return of that which rightfully belongs to” the plaintiff). Great-West alleges that the Knudsons would be unjustly enriched if permitted to retain the funds. See 1 D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies §4.1(2), p. 557 (2d ed. 1993) (“The fundamental substantive basis for restitution is that the defendant has been unjustly enriched by receiving something, tangible or intangible, that properly belongs to the plaintiff.”). And Great-West sued to recover an amount representing the Knudsons’ unjust gain, rather than Great-West’s loss. See 3 id., § 12.1(1), at 9 (“Restitutionary recoveries are based on the defendant’s gain, not on the plaintiff’s loss.”).

As the majority appears to admit, see ante, at 214, our cases have invariably described restitutionary relief as “equitable” without even mentioning, much less dwelling upon, the ancient classifications on which today’s holding rests. See, e. g., Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412, 424 (1987) (restitution “traditionally considered an equitable remedy”); Mertens, 508 U. S., at 255 (restitution is a “remedy traditionally viewed as ‘equitable’ ”); Teamsters v. Terry, 494 U. S. 558, 570 (1990) (“[W]e have characterized [money] damages as equitable where they are restitutionary.”); Mitchell, 361 U. S., at 291-293 (District Court could exercise equitable authority under Fair Labor Standards Act to order restitution); cf. Moses v. Macferlan, 2 Burr. 1005, 1012, 97 Eng. Rep. 676, 681 (K. B. 1760) (“In one word, the gist of this kind of action is that the defendant, upon the circumstances of the case, is obliged by the ties of natural justice and equity to refund the money.”). These cases establish what the Court does not *230and cannot dispute: Restitution was “within the recognized power and within the highest tradition of a court of equity.” Porter, 328 U. S., at 402.

More important, if one’s concern is to follow the Legislature’s will, Congress itself has treated as equitable a type of restitution substantially similar to the relief Great-West seeks here. Congress placed in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the instruction that, to redress violations of the Act, courts may award, inter alia, “appropriate ... equitable relief,” including “reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without back pay.” 42 U. S. C. §20G0e-5(g)(l) (1994 ed.). Interpreting this provision, we have recognized that backpay is “a form of restitution,” Curtis, 415 U. S., at 197; see Terry, 494 U. S., at 572, and that “Congress specifically characterized backpay under Title VII as a form of ‘equitable relief,’ ” ibid. The Mertens majority used Title VII’s “equitable relief” provision as the touchstone for its interpretation of § 502(a)(3), see 508 U. S., at 255; today’s majority declares, with remarkable inconsistency, that “Title VII has nothing to do with this case,” ante, at 219, n. 4. The Court inexplicably fails to offer any reason why Congress did not intend “equitable relief” in § 502(a)(3) to include a plaintiff’s “recover[y of] money to pay for some benefit the defendant had received from him,” ante, at 213 (internal quotation marks omitted), but did intend those words to encompass such relief in a measure (Title VII) enacted years earlier.2

*231I agree that “not all relief falling under the rubric of restitution [was] available in equity,” ante, at 212 (emphasis added); restitution was also available in claims brought at law, and the majority may be correct that in such cases restitution would have been termed “legal,” ante, at 213. But that in no way affects the answer to the question at the core of this case. Section 502(a)(3) as interpreted in Mertens encompasses those “categories of relief that were typically available in equity,” 508 U. S., at 256 (emphasis in original), not those that were exclusively so. Restitution plainly fits that bill. By insisting that § 502(a)(3) embraces only those claims that, in the circumstances of the particular case, could be brought in chancery in times of yore, the majority labors against the holding of that case. Indeed, Mertens explicitly *232rejected a position close to the one embraced by the Court today; Mertens recognized that “[a]s memories of the divided bench, and familiarity with its technical refinements, recede further into the past, [an interpretation of § 502(a)(3) keyed to the relief a court of equity could award in a particular case] becomes, perhaps, increasingly unlikely.” 508 U. S., at 256-257.

My.objection to the inquiry the Court today adopts in spite of Mertens does not turn on “the difficulty of th[e] task,” ante, at 217. To be sure, I question the Court’s confidence in the ability of “the standard works” to “make the answer clear”; the Court does not indicate what rule prevails, for example, when those works conflict, as they do on key points, compare Restatement of Restitution § 160, Comment e, p. 645 (1936) (constructive trust over money available only where transfer procured by abuse of fiduciary relation or where legal remedy inadequate), with 1 Dobbs, Law of Remedies §4.3(2), at 595, 597 (limitation of constructive trust to “mis-dealings by fiduciaries” a “misconception”; adequacy of legal remedy “seems irrelevant”). And courts have recognized that this Court’s preferred method is indeed “difficult to apply,” Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U. S. 531, 538, n. 10 (1970), calling for analysis that “may seem to reek unduly of the study,” Damsky v. Zavatt, 289 F. 2d 46, 48 (CA2 1961) (Friendly, J.), “ ‘if not of the museum,’ ” id., at 59 (Clark, J., dissenting).

Even if the Court’s chosen texts always yielded a quick and plain answer, however, I would think it no less implausible that Congress intended to make controlling the doctrine those texts describe. See supra, at 224-228. Our reliance on that doctrine in the context of the Seventh Amendment and Judiciary Act of 1789, see ante, at 217, underscores the incongruity of applying it here. It may be arguable that “preserving” the meaning of those founding-era provisions requires courts to determine which tribunal would have entertained a particular claim in 18th-century England. See *233Grupo Mexicano, 527 U. S., at 318-319; Terry, 494 U. S., at 593 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (“We cannot preserve a right existing in 1791 unless we look to history to identify it.”). But no such rationale conceivably justifies asking that question in cases arising under § 502(a)(3)(B), a provision of a distinctly modern statute Congress passed in 1974.

That the import of the term “equity” might depend on context does not signify a “rolling revision of its content,” ante, at 217, but rather a recognition that equity, characteristically, was and should remain an evolving and dynamic jurisprudence, see Grupo Mexicano, 527 U. S., at 336-337 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). Cf. Mertens, 508 U. S., at 257 (“[lit remains a question of interpretation in each case which meaning [Congress] intended” to impart to the term “equitable relief.”). As courts in the common-law realm have reaffirmed: “Principles of equity, we were all taught, were introduced by Lord Chancellors and their deputies ... in order to provide relief from the inflexibility of common law rules.” Medforth v. Blake, [1999] 3 All E. R. 97, 110 (C. A.); see Boulting v. Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians, [1963] 2 Q. B. 606, 636 (C. A.) (“[A]ll rules of equity [are] flexible, in the sense that [they] develo[p] to meet the changing situations and conditions of the time.”); Pettkus v. Becker, [1980] 2 S. C. R. 834, 847, 117 D. L. R. (3d) 257, 273 (“The great advantage of ancient principles of equity is their flexibility: the judiciary is thus able to shape these malleable principles so as to accommodate the changing needs and mores of society.”). This Court’s equation of “equity” with the rigid application of rules frozen in a bygone era, I maintain, is thus “unjustifiabl[e]” even as applied to a law grounded in that era. Grupo Mexicano, 527 U. S., at 336 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). As applied to a statute like ERISA, however, such insistence is senseless.

Thus, there is no reason to ask what court would have entertained Great-West’s claim “[i]n the days of the divided bench,” ante, at 212, and no need to engage in the antiquar*234ian inquiry through which the majority attempts to answer that question. Nor would reading § 502(a)(3) to encompass restitution render the modifier “equitable” “utterly pointless,” as the Court fears, ante, at 216. Such a construction would confine the scope of that provision to significantly “less than all relief,” ante, at 209 (quoting Mertens, 508 U. S., at 258, n. 8). Most notably, it would exclude compensatory and punitive damages, see id., at 255, which, “though occasionally awarded in equity” under the “clean up doctrine,” Reich v. Continental Casualty Co., 33 F. 3d 754, 756 (CA7 1994), were not typically available in such courts. See 1 S. Symons, Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence § 181, p. 257 (5th ed. 1941). That large limitation is indeed “unmistakable.” But cf. ante, at 217. In sum, the reading I would adopt is entirely faithful to the core holding of Mertens: “[Ejquitable relief” in § 502(a)(3) “refer[s] to those categories of relief that were typically available in equity (such as injunction, mandamus, and restitution, but not compensatory damages).” 508 U. S., at 256.

* * *

Today’s decision needlessly obscures the meaning and complicates the application of § 502(a)(3). The Court’s interpretation of that provision embroils federal courts in “recondite controversies better left to legal historians,” Terry, 494 U. S., at 576 (Brennan, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), and yields results that are demonstrably at odds with Congress’ goals in enacting ERISA. Because in my view Congress cannot plausibly be said to have “carefully crafted” such confusion, ante, at 221,1 dissent.