Editing Consent decree (section)

==Most frequent uses==

===Antitrust law===

Violations of [[United States antitrust law|antitrust law]] are typically resolved through consent decrees, which began to be more widely used after 1914 with the enactment of the [[Clayton Antitrust Act]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Kramer |first=Victor H. |date=1958 |title=Modification of Consent Decrees: A Proposal to the Antitrust Division |journal=Michigan Law Review |volume=56 |issue=7 |pages=1051–1066 |doi=10.2307/1285759|issn=0026-2234 |jstor=1285759 |url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol56/iss7/2 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> This act began to address the complexities of antitrust economic regulation{{sfn|Isenbergh|Rubin|1940|pp=386–414}} by recognizing the use of consent decrees as a method for the enforcement of federal antitrust legislation.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Stedman |first=Robert |date=31 May 1965 |title=Consent Decrees and the Private Action: An Antitrust Dilemma |url=https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2986&context=californialawreview |journal=California Law Review |volume=53 |issue=2 |pages=627–654 |doi=10.15779/Z38647H |access-date=February 12, 2018 |archive-date=February 12, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180212084653/https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2986&context=californialawreview |url-status=dead }}</ref>{{sfn|Isenbergh|Rubin|1940|pp=386–414}} In amending the antitrust statutes laid out in the [[Sherman Antitrust Act]] (1890) and its supplement, the [[Clayton Antitrust Act]] (1914),<ref name=":10" /> the [[Tunney Act]] further specified how consent decrees could be used by establishing that the courts must demonstrate that consent decrees serve the "public interest" in antitrust cases filed by the [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department]].<ref name="resnik2015" /><ref name="west" /><ref name=":8" />{{sfn|Mengler|1987|pp=291–346}} In regard to antitrust decrees, the first consent decree used in antitrust regulation under the [[Sherman Antitrust Act]] was ''[[Swift & Co. v. United States]]''<ref name=":6" /> in which the Court used its power under the [[Commerce Clause]] to regulate the Chicago meat trust as an unlawful economic monopoly.<ref name=":7" /><ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1904/1904_103 |title=Swift & Co. v. United States |date=September 25, 2015|work=The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150925041421/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1904/1904_103|archive-date=2015-09-25}}</ref> In ''[[Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States]]'', the government used consent decrees to dissolve the [[Horizontal integration|horizontal monopoly]] that [[John D. Rockefeller]] had established.{{sfn|Stedman|1965|pp=631–632}}<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":8" /> Other examples of antitrust consent decrees can be found in a wide range of areas, including their involvement in corporations specializing in technology,<ref>{{cite court |name=United States v. Microsoft Corporation |court=D.C. Circ. |reporter=F.3d |vol=253 |opinion=34 |date=2001 |url= https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/}}</ref><ref name=":8" /> the film industry,<ref>{{ussc |name=United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. |volume=344 |page=131 |pin=141 |date=1948}}.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |date=1941 |title=Legislation by Consent in the Motion Picture Industry |journal=The Yale Law Journal |volume=50 |issue=5 |pages=854–875 |doi=10.2307/792512 |issn=0044-0094 |jstor=792512 |s2cid=220422287 |url= https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/20.500.13051/13057/2/58_50YaleLJ854_1940_1941_.pdf }}</ref> and the motor vehicle industry.<ref name="west" /><ref>{{ussc |name=Chrysler Corp. v. United States |volume=316 |page=556 |date=1942}}.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Dabney |first=Seth M. |date=1958 |title=Antitrust Consent Decrees: How Protective an Umbrella |journal=Yale Law Journal |volume=68 |issue=7 |pages=1391–1407 |doi=10.2307/794370 |jstor=794370 |url= https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8727&context=ylj}}</ref>

===Structural reform===

====School desegregation====
 
The effort to [[Desegregation|desegregate]] American public schools began in 1954 with ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]''. This [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States|landmark]] Supreme Court case established that racial segregation of children in public schools was in violation of the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], which requires that states must not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".<ref>{{ussc |name=Brown v. Board of Education |volume=347 |page=483 |pin=495 |date=1954}}.</ref> To properly enforce this legislation, the Supreme Court allowed district courts to use desegregation decrees obligating states to actively transition into racially nondiscriminatory school systems, with "all deliberate speed".<ref>{{ussc |name=Brown v. Board of Education |volume=349 |page=294 |pin=295 |date=1954}}.</ref> Since the original decree did not include specific ways this could be done, beginning with ''[[Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education]]'' in 1971, the Supreme Court specifically defined the objective as eliminating "all vestiges of state imposed segregation"<ref>{{ussc |name=Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education |volume=402 |page=1 |pin=15 |date=1971}}.
{{cite court |name= |court= |reporter=U.S. |pinpoint=15 |date= |url= https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/402/1/case.html#15}}</ref>{{full citation needed|date=August 2020|reason=Most of the citation details are missing.}} within school systems, including the limited use of [[Desegregation busing|busing]],<ref>''Swann'', 402 U.S. at 29–31.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Green |first=Preston Cary |date=1999 |title=Can State Constitutional Provisions Eliminate de Facto Segregation in the Public Schools? |journal=The Journal of Negro Education |volume=68 |issue=2 |pages=138–153 |doi=10.2307/2668121 |issn=0022-2984 |jstor=2668121 }}</ref> [[racial quota]]s,<ref>''Swann'', 402 U.S. at 22–25.</ref> the creation of [[magnet school]]s and judicial placement of new schools,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Williams |first=G. Scott |date=1987 |title=Unitary School Systems and Underlying Vestiges of State-Imposed Segregation |journal=[[Columbia Law Review]] |volume=87 |issue=4 |pages=794–816 |doi=10.2307/1122610 |issn=0010-1958 |jstor=1122610 }}</ref> and the redrawing of school attendance zones.<ref>''Swann'', 402 U.S. at 27–29.</ref> To stop judicial intervention in schools and end the consent decree through a court order, districts must demonstrate desegregation within six criteria defined in the ''[[Green v. County School Board of New Kent County]]''<ref>{{ussc |name=Green v. County School Board of New Kent County |volume=391 |page=430 |date=1968}}.</ref> ruling&nbsp;– which include, student assignment, faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities.<ref>''Green'', 391 U.S. at 435.</ref>{{sfn|Baradaran-Robinson|2003|p=1346}}

====Police use of violence====
Consent decrees have been signed by a number of cities concerning their police departments' [[Use of force|use-of-force]] policies and practices,<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/11/13/forced-reforms-mixed-results/ |title=Forced Reforms, Mixed Results |last1=Kelly |first1=Kimbriell |date=November 13, 2015 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |access-date=November 10, 2016 |last2=Childress |first2=Sarah |last3=Rich |first3=Steven}}</ref> including [[Chicago]], [[New Orleans]],<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.wwltv.com/news/local/residents-say-consent-decree-changes-are-negatively-impacting-the-community/145985013 |title=Residents say consent decree changes are negatively impacting the community |last=Dall |first=Tania |publisher=WWL |date=April 20, 2016 |access-date=November 11, 2016 |archive-date=November 11, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161111124528/http://www.wwltv.com/news/local/residents-say-consent-decree-changes-are-negatively-impacting-the-community/145985013 |url-status=dead }}</ref> [[Oakland, California|Oakland]],<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-police-misconduct-cases-raise-doubts-on-8350857.php |title=Oakland police misconduct cases raise questions on oversight |last=Swan |first=Rachel |date=July 10, 2016 |work=San Francisco Chronicle |access-date=November 10, 2016}}</ref> [[Los Angeles]] (whose consent decree was lifted in 2013),<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2013-may-16-la-me-lapd-consent-decree-20130517-story.html |title=Federal judge lifts LAPD consent decree |last=Rubin |first=Joel |date=May 16, 2013 |work=[[Los Angeles Times]]}}</ref> [[Baltimore]],<ref>{{cite web|title=City of Baltimore Consent Decree|url=https://consentdecree.baltimorecity.gov/}}</ref> [[Ferguson, Missouri]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/the-damage-done-by-jeff-sessions-last-act-as-ag-1412616771933|title=The damage done by Jeff Sessions' last act as AG|website=[[MSNBC]]}}</ref> [[Seattle]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-city-life/2020/07/seattle-s-decade-of-attempts-to-fix-the-police-timeline|title = Seattle's Decade of Attempts to Fix the Police: A Timeline}}</ref> [[United States v. City of Portland|Portland]], and [[Albuquerque]].<ref>{{cite news |title=APD specialized squads, Internal Affairs getting overhaul in DOJ consent decree |url=http://krqe.com/2014/10/31/apd-specialized-squads-internal-affairs-getting-overhaul-in-doj-consent-decree/ |last=Proctor |first=Jeff |publisher=KRQE |date=October 31, 2014 |access-date=November 11, 2016 |archive-date=November 11, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161111191453/http://krqe.com/2014/10/31/apd-specialized-squads-internal-affairs-getting-overhaul-in-doj-consent-decree/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> On June 16, 2023, Minneapolis officials promised to enter into negotiations for a consent decree to be enforced by the DOJ in response to a scathing June 2023 [[US Department of Justice]] report resulting from a multiyear federal investigation into the "patterns and practices" of [[Minneapolis Police Department]] following the [[Timeline of race relations and policing in Minneapolis–Saint Paul|May 25, 2020]] [[murder of George Floyd]] by MPD officers.<ref name="Londoño_NYT_20230606">{{Cite news| issn = 0362-4331| last1 = Londoño| first1 = Ernesto| last2 = Thrush| first2 = Glenn| last3 = Smith| first3 = Mitch| last4 = Simmons| first4 = Dan| title = Minneapolis Police Used Illegal, Abusive Practices for Years, Justice Dept. Finds| work = The New York Times| access-date = June 17, 2023| date = June 16, 2023 | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/16/us/doj-report-minneapolis-police.html}}</ref><ref name="Dewan_NYT_20230607">{{Cite news| issn = 0362-4331| last = Dewan| first = Shaila| title = Consent Decrees Force Changes to Policing. But Do Reforms Last?| work = The New York Times| access-date = June 17, 2023 | date = June 17, 2023 | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/17/us/consent-decrees-police-reform.html}}</ref>

===Public law===
Consent decrees have been used to remedy various social issues that deal with public and private organizations, where a large number of people are often concerned even if they may not be members of either party involved.{{sfn|Schwarzschild|1984|p=887}} Examples have included [[Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964]], the [[Americans with Disabilities Act]], and environmental safety provisions.

====Actions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964====

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, or national origin.<ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|42|2000e-2}}</ref> Most often, the remedies to workplace discrimination carried out under this Act take place in the form of consent decrees, where employers may have to provide monetary awards or introduce policies and programs that eliminate and prevent future discrimination.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/remedies.cfm |title=Remedies for Employment Discrimination |publisher=U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Ending Sex and Race Discrimination in the Workplace: Legal Interventions That Push the Envelope |last1=Hegewisch |first1=Ariane |last2=Deitch |first2=Cynthia H. |last3=Murphy |first3=Evelyn F. |publisher=Institute for Women's Policy Research |date=2011 |isbn=978-1-933161-06-8 }}</ref> These may include decrees that require the creation of new recruitment and hiring procedures to gain a more diverse pool of job applicants,<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Bockman, et al. and EEOC v. Lucky Stores, Inc. |court=United States District Court for the Eastern District of California |reporter=F.R.D. |vol=108 |pinpoint=11 |date=1986 |url= https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/79884c}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. |court=United States District Court for the District of Arizona |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |vol=147 |pinpoint=980 |url= https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/147/980/2408986/}}</ref> upgrading job and promotion assignment systems,<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Abdallah v. Coca-Cola Co. |court=United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |vol=133 |pinpoint=1364 |date=2001 |url= https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/133/1364/2292835/}}</ref><ref>{{cite court |litigants=Dorman v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. |court=M.D. Fla. |reporter=So. 2d. |pinpoint=50–56 |date=2000 |url= https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/79931}}</ref> or offering training programs focusing on discrimination and diversity.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Kosen, et al. v. American Express Financial Advisors, Inc. et al. |court=United States District Court for the District of Columbia |pinpoint=p. 21 |url= https://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/80002}}</ref><ref>''Butler v. Home Depot'', Case Number: C 95-2182 SI; C 94-4335 SI, pp. 33–36</ref> Under the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]], the [[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]] (EEOC) was created to be a major advocate and enforcer of the previously mentioned Title VII remedies.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/ |title= The Law |publisher= U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |access-date= February 12, 2018 |archive-date= May 15, 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170515003647/https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/ |url-status= dead }}</ref> In a landmark decision in 1973, the EEOC, [[United States Department of Labor|Department of Labor]] and [[AT&T]] compromised on a consent decree that phased out discrimination within recruiting, hiring and employment methods in regard to minorities and women.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/milestones/1973.html |title= Milestones |publisher= U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |access-date= February 12, 2018 |archive-date= July 8, 2017 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20170708170213/https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/milestones/1973.html |url-status= dead }}</ref> This established a precedent for other large, private U.S. companies to avoid litigation and government oversight by creating decrees in cooperation with Title VII.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Green |first=Venus |date=26 April 2012 |title=Flawed Remedies: EEOC, AT&T, and Sears Outcomes Reconsidered |journal=Black Women, Gender & Families |volume=6 |issue=1 |pages=43 |issn=1944-6462 |doi=10.5406/blacwomegendfami.6.1.0043 |s2cid=144511760 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Williams |first=Benton |date=October 2008 |title=AT&T and the Private-sector Origins of Private-sector Affirmative Action |journal=Journal of Policy History |volume=20 |issue=4 |pages=542–568 |doi=10.1353/jph.0.0027 |s2cid=154842854 |issn=1528-4190 }}</ref>

====Americans with Disabilities Act====

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was a civil rights law passed in 1990 that prohibits discrimination and ensures that people with disabilities have equal access to the opportunities and benefits available to the wider American population.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.ada.gov/ada_intro.htm |title=Introduction to the ADA |date=April 12, 2023 |publisher=Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice}}</ref><ref>{{UnitedStatesCode|42|12112}}, {{UnitedStatesCode|42|12113}}, and {{UnitedStatesCode|42|12114}}</ref> Institutions that violate the requirements of the ADA enter consent decrees typically resulting in a payment from the corporation to those wronged, which may serve to discourage future discrimination, in addition to a change in policy to avoid future payouts.<ref>{{cite web |title=ADA Settlements and Consent Agreements |work=Americans with Disabilities Act |publisher=United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division |url= http://www.ada.gov/settlemt.htm |access-date=2014-04-21 |url-status=dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140721061207/http://www.ada.gov/settlemt.htm |archive-date=2014-07-21}}</ref> Examples of altered practices through the use of a decree have included restructuring building property<ref>{{cite web |title=Justice Department Reaches Agreement with Hilton Worldwide Inc. Over ADA Violations at Hilton Hotels and Major Hotel Chains Owned by Hilton |work=Justice News |date=November 9, 2010 |publisher=The United States Department of Justice |url= http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/November/10-crt-1268.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=United States' Opposition to Defendant United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc |url= http://www.ada.gov/archive/uamotion.pdf |publisher=United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division}}</ref> or the removal of barriers<ref>{{cite web |title=Settlement Agreement Concerning the Olympic Stadium |publisher=United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division |url= http://www.ada.gov/stadiumo.htm}}</ref> to allow for physical accessibility for all persons, providing supplemental communication tools such as [[sign language interpreter]]s<ref>{{cite web |title=Justice Department Settles Americans with Disabilities Act Lawsuit with Virginia's Inova Health System |work=Justice News |date=March 29, 2011 |publisher=The United States Department of Justice |url= http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/March/11-crt-392.html}}</ref> for those that are hard of hearing, and eliminating discriminatory practices against those that have a disability.<ref>{{cite web |title=The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Twenty Years of ADA Enforcement, Twenty Significant Cases |publisher=U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission |url=http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/45th/ada20/ada_cases.cfm |access-date=April 21, 2014 |archive-date=April 22, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140422232130/http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/45th/ada20/ada_cases.cfm |url-status=dead }}</ref>

====Environmental law====

Consent decrees have been used to alter environmental policy, one example being the "Flannery Decision", or the Toxics Consent Decree, entered into by the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency|Environmental Protection Agency]] and the [[Natural Resources Defense Council]], an environmental advocacy group.<ref>[[wikisource:Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train/Opinion of the Court|Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train]], No. 74 Civ. 4617 (S.D.N.Y., March 1976)</ref> This decree, signed in 1976, highly restructured the way the EPA dealt with harmful substances by requiring the agency to list and regulate 65 toxic pollutants and to regulate pollutant discharges on an industry-by-industry basis (i.e., [[effluent guidelines]] regulations) rather than by singular pollutants.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Trussell |first=R. Rhodes |date=January 1, 2006 |title=Constituents of Emerging Concern: An Overview |url= https://www.environmental-expert.com/Files/5306/articles/8864/115.pdf |journal=Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation |volume=2006 |issue=12 |pages=1460–1467 |doi=10.2175/193864706783749585 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Toxic and Priority Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act |url= https://www.epa.gov/eg/toxic-and-priority-pollutants-under-clean-water-act |date=2019-04-08 |publisher=U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) |location=Washington, D.C.}}</ref> This decree went on to shape the regulations and administration procedures of water policy within the United States, particularly through the [[Clean Water Act]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=O'Leary |first=Rosemary |date=1990 |title=The Courts and the EPA: The Amazing "Flannery Decision" |url= https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254166607|journal=Natural Resources & Environment |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=18–55 |issn=0882-3812 |jstor=40923877 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Wyche |first=Bradford W. |date=1983 |title=The Regulation of Toxic Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act: EPA's Ten Year Rulemaking Nears Completion |journal=Natural Resources Lawyer |volume=15 |issue=3 |pages=511–536 |issn=0028-0747 |jstor=40922727 }}</ref>