Written laws comprising Federal and State codes generally limit remedial authority. In this sense, the link between substantive liability and the nature of the relief awarded cannot be ignored, any more than it should be the sole point of reference. One limiting principle constraining judicial remedial power is the doctrine that remedies must be narrowly tailored to fit the particular violation. Party- specific relief refers to both sides of a dispute. From the plaintiff's perspective, to meet the narrow tailoring requirement, a remedy must be sufficient to correct the injury or the wrong but not be more expansive. On the defendant's side, the limiting principle is similar, that tailored relief reach only the wrongdoer and not others. Overarching constitutional limitations also apply to the remedial powers of courts. One constitutional breakpoint is reached when a court steps out of its judicial role and into a legislative role. Beyond that, a court should not cross substantive constitutional lines when devising remedies. Nonetheless, at least one exception invariably exists for every rule; most school decrees, for example, have been modified in response to changing conditions and demographics. Judicial decrees should not outlive their usefulness, and the finite nature of such decrees should be recognized. 31 footnotes