Editing Injunction (section)

==Rationale==
The injunction is an equitable remedy<ref>Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311 (1982).</ref> that was created by the English [[Court of equity|courts of equity]]. Like other equitable remedies, it has traditionally been given when a wrong cannot be effectively remedied by an award of money damages. (The doctrine that reflects this is the requirement that an injunction can be given only when there is "no adequate remedy at law.") Injunctions are intended to make whole again someone whose rights have been violated. Nevertheless, when deciding whether to grant an injunction, courts also take into account the interests of non-parties (that is, the public interest). When deciding whether to give an injunction, and deciding what its scope should be, courts give special attention to questions of fairness and good faith. One manifestation of this is that injunctions are subject to equitable defenses, such as [[Laches (equity)|laches]] and [[unclean hands]].<ref name="Little Bit of Laches">{{cite journal |ssrn=2376080 |title=A Little Bit of Laches Goes a Long Way: Notes on Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. |volume=67 |page=1 |journal=[[Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc]] |first=Samuel |last=Bray|year=2014}}</ref>

Injunctions are given in many different kinds of cases. They can prohibit future violations of the law, such as trespass to real property, infringement of a patent, or the violation of a constitutional right (e.g., the free exercise of religion). Or they can require the defendant to repair past violations of the law.

An injunction can require someone to do something, like clean up an oil spill or remove a [[spite fence]]. Or it can prohibit someone from doing something, like using an illegally obtained trade secret. An injunction that requires conduct is called a "mandatory injunction." An injunction that prohibits conduct is called a "prohibitory injunction."<ref name="Dobbs">{{cite book | last = Dobbs | first = Dan | year = 1993 | title = Law of Remedies: Damages—Equity—Restitution | url = https://archive.org/details/handbookonlawofr00dobb | url-access = registration | edition = 2 | publisher = West Publishing Co. | location = St. Paul, Minnesota | isbn = 0-314-00913-2 | page = [https://archive.org/details/handbookonlawofr00dobb/page/224 224]}}</ref> Many injunctions are both—that is, they have both mandatory and prohibitory components, because they require some conduct and forbid other conduct.

When an injunction is given, it can be enforced with equitable enforcement mechanisms such as contempt.<ref>International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994).</ref> It can also be modified or dissolved (upon a proper motion to the court) if circumstances change in the future.<ref name="Jost">{{cite journal |title=From Swift to Stotts and Beyond: Modification of Injunctions in the Federal Courts |volume=64 |page=1101 |journal=[[Texas Law Review]]|first=Timothy Stoltzfus |last=Jost|year=1986}}</ref> These features of the injunction allow a court granting one to manage the behavior of the parties. That is the most important distinction between the injunction and another non-monetary remedy in American law, the [[declaratory judgment]].<ref name="Myth">{{cite journal |ssrn=2330050 |title=The Myth of the Mild Declaratory Judgment |volume=63 |page=1091 |journal=[[Duke Law Journal]]|first=Samuel |last=Bray|year=2014}}</ref> Another way these two remedies are distinguished is that the declaratory judgment is sometimes available at an earlier point in a dispute than the injunction.<ref name="Myth" />