Equitable defenses were given up for dead after eBay v. MercExchange . But they have been resurrected. The Supreme Court is raising the dead in recent decisions. It is integrating these judge-made doctrines into federal law despite their omission from the language of the legislation. The fusion of equitable defenses into federal statutes is important because it allows judges discretion to vary statutory outcomes on a case-by-case basis. As a result, an assortment of indeterminate defenses may stand in the way of remedying statutory violations. The Supreme Court’s approach to equity exerts a decisive influence on legislative developments. There is considerable controversy surrounding the judicial use of equitable principles to deny statutory relief. Of equal concern is that courts engage in interest balancing or policy-making that may appear inconsistent with the federal judicial role. Also questionable is whether these elusive concepts can be adequately contained and comprehensible. Scholars have trained a precise lens on the issues of judicial authority and institutional competence involving statutory remedies. A corollary concern—one so intuitive we lose sight of it—is equitable defenses. The Court has yet to account for the recognition of equitable defenses that forfeit congressionally-created causes of action. This Article begins to outline an approach to the interaction between written statutes and unwritten equitable defenses. Concentrating on Supreme Court cases, it examines the decisional law of eight defenses across almost as many statutory subjects over the last two centuries. The Article exposes an equity-protective principle of interpretation that favors these ancient doctrines in modern Supreme Court practice. It also identifies possible bases for this assumption. It additionally responds to potential objections to this default rule that approves equitable defenses in legislation that does not directly provide for them. Taken as a whole, the Article explains and defends the recognition of equitable defenses in statutory law.

中文翻译：

---

法定解释、司法自由裁量权和公平辩护

在 eBay 诉 MercExchange 案之后，公平的辩护被放弃了。但是他们已经复活了。最高法院在最近的决定中正在复活死者。尽管立法语言中遗漏了这些法官制定的学说，但它正在将这些法官制定的学说整合到联邦法律中。将公平辩护融入联邦法规很重要，因为它允许法官根据具体情况酌情改变法定结果。因此，各种不确定的抗辩可能会妨碍对违反法定行为的补救。最高法院的公平方法对立法的发展产生了决定性的影响。围绕司法使用公平原则来拒绝法定救济存在相当大的争议。同样令人担忧的是，法院参与的利益平衡或政策制定可能与联邦司法角色不一致。同样值得怀疑的是，这些难以捉摸的概念是否能够被充分包含和理解。学者们在涉及法定救济的司法权威和机构能力问题上培养了精确的视角。一个必然的关注——一个如此直观的我们忽视了它——是公平的防御。法院尚未考虑对公平辩护的承认，这些辩护放弃了国会提出的诉讼因由。本文开始概述成文法规和不成文的衡平法抗辩之间相互作用的方法。它专注于最高法院案件，审查了过去两个世纪中几乎同样多的法定主体的八项辩护的判决法。该条揭示了在现代最高法院实践中支持这些古老学说的解释公平保护原则。它还确定了这一假设的可能基础。它还回应了对这一默认规则的潜在反对意见，该规则批准了立法中不直接规定的公平抗辩。总的来说，该条解释并捍卫了成文法中对衡平法抗辩的承认。