Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc.

Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 31, 1999
Decided June 17, 1999
Full case nameGrupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc.
Docket no.98-231
Citations527 U.S. 308 (more)
119 S. Ct. 1961
144 L. Ed. 2d 319
ArgumentOral argument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
Prior history
  • Preliminary injunction granted, Alliance Bond Fund, Inc. v. Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. (S.D.N.Y. December 23, 1997)
  • Summary judgment and permanent injunction granted (S.D.N.Y. April 17, 1998)
  • Preliminary injunction affirmed, 143 F.3d 688 (2d Cir. May 6, 1998)
  • Certiorari granted, 525 U.S. 1015 (November 30, 1998)
Subsequent
  • Vacated in part and remanded, 190 F.3d 16 (2d Cir. August 20, 1999)
Holding
The district court lacked authority to preliminarily enjoin petitioners from disposing of their assets pending adjudication of a claim for money damages because such a remedy was historically unavailable from a court of equity.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by unanimous (Part II); Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Thomas
Concur/dissentGinsburg, joined by Stevens, Souter, Breyer
Laws applied
Judiciary Act of 1789

Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999), commonly called Grupo Mexicano, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down—as beyond the equitable remedies authorized by Congress—a preliminary injunction that had frozen the assets of the defendants pending a final judgment.

The Supreme Court noted that Congress had not legislated to create a new asset-freezing remedy and that such an injunction was not traditionally available in the English Court of Chancery when the United States was founded. The majority held, by a 5–4 vote, that the equitable remedies authorized by the Judiciary Act of 1789 are limited to remedies that were available in courts of equity at that time.

The dissenting justices agreed that this type of injunction was not traditionally available in 1789 but argued that equitable remedies can evolve with new circumstances, and that the modern ease of international transfer of assets justified this novel use of a preliminary injunction.