Editing Consent decree

{{Short description|Type of legal settlement}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=April 2019}}
{{Use American English|date=April 2019}}

A '''consent decree''' is an agreement or [[Settlement (litigation)|settlement]] that resolves a dispute between two parties without [[Admission (law)|admission of guilt]] (in a [[criminal case]]) or liability (in a [[civil case]]). Most often it is such a type of settlement in the [[United States]].{{sfn|Lehman|Phelps|2005|pp=103–104}}<ref name=":0">{{cite journal |last=Dabney |first=Seth M. |date=1963 |title=Consent Decrees without Consent |journal=Columbia Law Review |volume=63 |issue=6 |pages=1053–1064 |doi=10.2307/1120423 |issn=0010-1958 |jstor=1120423 }}</ref> The [[plaintiff]] and the [[defendant]] ask the court to enter into their agreement, and the court maintains supervision over the implementation of the decree in monetary exchanges or restructured interactions between parties.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1">{{cite book |title=Encyclopedia of the American Constitution |last=Karst |first=Kenneth |publisher=Macmillan Reference USA |date=2000 |isbn=978-0-02-865986-2 |editor-last=Levy |editor-first=Leonard |edition=2nd |volume=2 |location=Detroit |pages=507 |chapter=Consent Decree |oclc=57317227 |editor-last2=Karst |editor-first2=Kenneth |editor-last3=Winkler |editor-first3=Adam}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Baradaran-Robinson |first=Shima |date=2003 |title=Kaleidoscopic Consent Decrees: School Desegregation and Prison Reform Consent Decrees After the Prison Litigation Reform Act and Freeman-Dowell |url= https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2183&context=lawreview |journal=Brigham Young University Law Review |volume=2003 |pages=1333 }}</ref><ref name="resnik2015">{{cite journal |author1-link=Judith Resnik (lawyer)|last=Resnik |first=Judith |date=December 7, 2015 |title=Judging Consent |url= https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=uclf |journal=University of Chicago Legal Forum |volume=1987 |issue=1 |issn=0892-5593 }}</ref> It is similar to and sometimes referred to as an '''antitrust decree''', '''stipulated judgment''', or '''consent judgment'''.<ref name="resnik2015" /><ref name="mengler1987">{{cite journal |last=Mengler |first=Thomas M. |date=1987 |title=Consent Decree Paradigms: Models without Meaning |journal=Boston College Law Review |volume=29 }}</ref>{{sfn|Mengler|1987|p=291}} Consent decrees are frequently used by [[Federal Courts of the United States|federal courts]] to ensure that businesses and industries adhere to regulatory laws in areas such as [[antitrust law]], [[employment discrimination]], and [[environmental regulation]].<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{cite journal |last=Shane |first=Peter |date=December 7, 2015 |title=Federal Policy Making by Consent Decree: An Analysis of Agency and Judicial Discretion |url= https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=uclf |journal=University of Chicago Legal Forum |volume=1987 |issue=1 |pages=241 |issn=0892-5593}}</ref><ref name="west">{{cite book |title=West's Encyclopedia of American Law |last1=Lehman |first1=Jeffrey |last2=Phelps |first2=Shirelle |publisher=Thomson/Gale |date=2005 |isbn=978-0-7876-6370-4 |edition=2nd |volume=3 |location=Detroit |chapter=Consent Decree |oclc=54544166 }}</ref>

==Legal process==

The process of introducing a consent decree begins with negotiation.<ref name="resnik2015" /> One of three things happens: a [[lawsuit]] is filed and the parties concerned reach an agreement prior to [[adjudication]] of the contested issues; a lawsuit is filed and actively contested, and the parties reach an agreement after the court has ruled on some issues; or the parties settle their dispute prior to the filing of a lawsuit and they simultaneously file a lawsuit and request that the court agree to the entry of [[Judgment (law)|judgment]].<ref name="resnik2015" /><ref name="isenbergh1940">{{cite journal |last1=Isenbergh |first1=Maxwell S. |last2=Rubin |first2=Seymour J. |date=1940 |title=Antitrust Enforcement Through Consent Decrees |journal=[[Harvard Law Review]] |volume=53 |issue=3 |pages=386–414 |doi=10.2307/1333475 |issn=0017-811X |jstor=1333475 }}</ref><ref name="kane">{{cite book |title=Civil Procedure in a Nutshell |last=Kane |first=Mary Kay |publisher=[[West Publishing]] |date=2001 |isbn=978-0-314-09398-1 |location=St. Paul, Minnesota |oclc=249079229 |url= https://archive.org/details/civilprocedurein00kane}}</ref> The court is meant to turn this agreement into a judicial decree.<ref name="kane" /><ref name="consent1922">{{cite journal |date=1922 |title=Consent Decrees |journal=Columbia Law Review |volume=22 |issue=4 |pages=344–348 |doi=10.2307/1111304 |issn=0010-1958 |jstor=1111304 |jstor-access=free |ref={{harvid|Consent Decrees|1922}}}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{cite journal |last=Schwarzschild |first=Maimon |date=November 1, 1984 |title=Public Law by Private Bargain: Title VII Consent Decrees and the Fairness of Negotiated Institutional Reform |url= https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2890&context=dlj |journal=Duke Law Journal |volume=33 |issue=5 |pages=887–936 |issn=0012-7086 |doi=10.2307/1372392 |jstor=1372392 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>{{sfn|Isenbergh|Rubin|1940|pp=388–389}} In many cases, the request for entry of a consent decree prompts judges to sign the documents presented then and there.<ref name="resnik2015" /><ref name=":2" /> In some cases, however, such as [[criminal case]]s, the judge must make some sorts of assessments before the court's entry of the agreement as a consent decree.<ref name="resnik2015" />

The usual consent decree is not self-executing.<ref name="consent1922" /> A consent decree is implemented when the parties transform their agreements from paper to reality.<ref name="resnik2015" /><ref name="kane" />{{sfn|Isenbergh|Rubin|1940|p=392}} The judge who signed the decree may have no involvement or may monitor the implementation.<ref name="resnik2015" /><ref name=":2" /> The judge can only step in to assist in enforcement if a party complains to the court that an opponent has failed to perform as agreed.<ref name="resnik2015" /> In this case, the offending party would be committed for [[Contempt of court|contempt]].<ref name="consent1922" />

Decrees by consent are more [[Legally binding|binding]] than those issued {{lang|la|in invitum}}, or against an unwilling party,<ref>{{cite web |title=''in invitum'' |work=Merriam-Webster.com |url= https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in+invitum |access-date=April 6, 2014}}</ref> which are subject to modification by the same court, and reversal by higher courts.<ref name="consent1922" /> The decree issued by consent cannot be modified, except by consent. If the decree was obtained by means of [[fraud]] or given by mistake, it may be set aside by a court.<ref name="consent1922" /> Errors of law or of inferences from the facts may invalidate it completely.<ref name="consent1922" /><ref name=":2" />

Typically, a consent decree dispenses with the necessity of having proof in court, since by definition the defendant agrees to the order. Thus, the use of a consent decree does not involve a [[Sentence (law)|sentence]] or an admission of guilt.<ref name="consent1922" /><ref>{{cite book |title=Civil Procedure in a Nutshell |last=Kane |first=Mary Kay |publisher=[[West Publishing]] |date=1996 |isbn=978-0-314-06641-1 |edition=4th |location=St. Paul, Minnesota |oclc=611673986 |url= https://archive.org/details/federalincometax00burk }}</ref>{{sfn|Isenbergh|Rubin|1940|p=387}} Likewise, the consent decree prevents a [[finding of facts]], so the decree cannot be pleaded as {{lang|la|[[Res judicata|res adjudicata]]}}.<ref name="kane" /><ref name="consent1922" />{{sfn|Isenbergh|Rubin|1940|p=394}}

==History==
Because judicial decrees are part of government civil enforcement in settlements that two parties typically agree to before [[litigation]] is filed, they act as a hybrid between a [[judicial order]] and a [[Settlement (litigation)|settlement]] without a party conceding criminal responsibility.<ref name="west" /><ref>{{cite report |title=Procedural and Institutional Norms in Antitrust Enforcement: The U.S. System |last1=First |first1=Harry |last2=Fox |first2=Eleanor M. |date=July 20, 2012 |publisher=Social Science Research Network |location=Rochester, New York |last3=Hemli |first3=Daniel E. |ssrn=2115886}}</ref>

Frederick Pollock and Frederic Maitland describe how courts during the 12th century of [[Medieval Europe]] used "fines" as a form of court orders to settle land disputes among litigants with the punitive power and legitimacy of courts through the use of consent decree.<ref name="resnik2015" /><ref>{{cite book |url= https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo1.ark:/13960/t5bc4jc23;view=1up;seq=9 |title=The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I |last1=Pollock |first1=Frederick |last2=Maitland |first2=Frederic William |publisher=University Press |date=1899 |volume=2 |location=Cambridge |oclc=919797536 }}</ref> In the United States, 19th and 20th century legal treatises<ref>{{cite book |title=A Treatise on the Law of Judgments |last1=Freeman |first1=A. C |last2=Tuttle |first2=Edward W |publisher=Bankroft-Whitney |date=1925 |edition=5th |location=San Francisco |oclc=184847752 |ol=22895645M |ol-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Civil Procedure of the Trial Court in Historical Perspective: Publ. by the Law Center of New York University |last=Millar |first=Robert Wymes |publisher=The national Conference of Judicial Councils |date=1952 |series=The Judicial Administration Series |location=New York |pages=356 |oclc=608618071 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url= https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112104662368;view=1up;seq=7 |title=A Treatise on Equity Pleading and Practice, With Illustrative Forms and Precedents |last=Fletcher |first=William Meade |publisher=Keefe Davidson Company |date=1902 |location=Saint Paul |oclc=1547525 }}</ref> show that consent decrees and the role of the court in the parties' settlement was ambiguous. The 1947 ''[[Corpus Juris Secundum]]'' declares that although consent decrees are "not the judgment of the court", they do have the "force and effect of a judgment".<ref name="resnik2015" /><ref>{{cite book |url= https://archive.org/stream/corpusjurissecun006795mbp#page/n327/mode/2up |title=Corpus Juris Secundum |last1=Ludes |first1=Francis J. |last2=Gilbert |first2=Harold J. |publisher=The American Law Book Co |date=1947 |volume=XLIX |at=§ 178 p. 308 }}</ref>

===Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure===
The [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]] and the [[Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure]], which both went into effect in 1938,<ref name="resnik2015" /> lay many of the legal foundations that govern the use of consent decrees.<ref name=":3">{{cite journal |last=Tobias |first=Carl |date=January 1, 1989 |title=Public Law Litigation and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure |url= http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3405&context=clr |journal=Cornell Law Review |volume=74 |issue=2 |pages=270 |issn=0010-8847 }}</ref><ref name=":4">{{cite journal |last=Chayes |first=Abram |title=The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation |journal=Harvard Law Review |volume=89 |issue=7 |pages=1281–1316 |doi=10.2307/1340256 |jstor=1340256 |year=1976}}</ref> Creating space for courts, which are important actors in implementing a consent decree, to enter into a settlement, [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure#Title IV – Parties|Rule 23]]<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23 |title=Rule 23. Class Actions |website=Federal Rules of Civil Procedure |publisher=Legal Information Institute}}</ref> of the [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]] gives [[Federal District Court|federal district courts]] the power to approve [[class action]] settlements as long as they are "fair, reasonable, and adequate".<ref name="resnik2015" /><ref name=west /><ref name=":3" /> Rule 54(b) defines ''judgment'', which refers to consent decree, and allows the court to "direct entry of a final judgment" when multiple parties are involved,<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_54 |title=Rule 54: Judgement; Costs |website=Federal Rules of Civil Procedure |publisher=Legal Information Institute}}</ref> and Rule 58 describes the procedure of how parties may enter judgment.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_58#rule_58 |title=Rule 58: Entering Judgement |website=Federal Rules of Civil Procedure |date=November 30, 2011 |publisher=Legal Information Institute}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{cite journal |last=Zitko |first=Robert R. |date=1994 |title=The Appealability of Conditional Consent Judgments |journal=University of Illinois Law Review |volume=1994 |pages=241 }}</ref> Additionally, Rule 60 describes conditions under which parties can be granted "relief from a judgment or order" (such as a consent decree).<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_58#rule_60 |title=Rule 60: Relief from a Judgement or Order |website=Federal Rules of Civil Procedure |date=November 30, 2011 |publisher=Legal Information Institute}}</ref>{{sfn|Tobias|1989|p=320}} As Rule 48 in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure stipulates that dismissals in criminal cases may not occur without "leave of court",<ref name="resnik2015" /><ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_58#rule_48 |title=Rule 48: Dismissal |website=Federal Rules of Civil Procedure |date=November 30, 2011 |publisher=Legal Information Institute}}</ref> Rule 41 allows, if all the parties agree, the court to dismiss any suit besides [[Class action|class action suits]], [[Derivative suit|shareholder derivative suits]], or bankruptcy action.<ref name=mengler1987 /><ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_41 |title=Rule 41: Dismissal of Actions |website=Federal Rules of Civil Procedure |publisher=Legal Information Institute}}</ref> Many of these rules create the space for consent decree by establishing the role of judges within the settlement of two parties.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{cite journal |last=Resnik |first=Judith |date=1989 |title=The Domain of Courts |url= http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1929&context=fss_papers |journal=University of Pennsylvania Law Review |volume=137 |issue=6 |pages=2219–2230 |doi=10.2307/3312214 |issn=0041-9907 |jstor=3312214 |s2cid=56043703 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

===Precedents===
Many of the early court cases involving consent decree set precedents for the roles that judges would play in the negotiating, approving, interpreting, and modifying a settlement between two parties.<ref name="resnik2015" /><ref name=west /><ref name=":4" /> The role of the judge in regard to consent decree wavers between "rubber stamping" versus applying their own judgments to a proposed settlement.<ref name="west" /><ref>{{cite journal |last=Anderson |first=Lloyd C. |date=1996 |title=United States v. Microsoft, Antitrust Consent Decrees, and the Need for a Proper Scope of Judicial Review |journal=Antitrust Law Journal |volume=65 |pages=40 }}</ref> In 1879, ''Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Ketchum'' bound the court's role in consent decrees to simply supporting to an agreement that parties have already established on their own.<ref name="resnik2015" /><ref>
{{ussc |name=Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Ketchum |volume=111 |page=505 |date=1884}}.</ref> 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=":7">{{ussc |namee=Swift & Co. v. United States |volume=196 |page=375 |date=1905}}.</ref><ref name=":6">{{cite web |url= https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/landmark_swift.html| title=Swift & Co. v. U.S. (1905) |last=McBride |first=Alez |date=2006 |work=Thirteen: Media with Impact |publisher=[[PBS]] |access-date=March 25, 2014}}</ref> With ''[[Swift & Co. v. United States]]'', the Supreme Court ruled that a consent decree could be modified or terminated only when new developments over time bring out a "grievous wrong" in how the ruling of the consent decree affects the parties of the suit.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":8">{{cite book |title=Antitrust Consent Decrees in Theory and Practice: Why Less Is More |last=Epstein |first=Richard A. |publisher=AEI Press |date=2007 |isbn=978-0-8447-4250-2 |location=Washington DC |url= https://archive.org/details/antitrustconsent0000epst }}</ref><ref name=":5" /> The Supreme Court supported this limited flexibility of consent decrees in ''[[United States v. Terminal Railroad Association]]'': "[A] decree will not be expanded by implication or intendment beyond the meaning of its terms when read in the light of the issues and the purposes for which the suit was brought."<ref name="mengler1987" /><ref>{{ussc |name=United States v. Terminal Railroad Association |volume=224 |page=383 |date=1912}}.</ref>

In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in ''United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.'', that to promote finality, a court's changes to consent a decree should be rare—but the courts can modify a consent decree or frame [[injunction|injunctive]] relief to ensure the litigation achieves its purpose.<ref name=mengler1987 /><ref>{{ussc |name=United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp. |volume=391 |page=244 |date=1968}}.</ref> Before a judge can enter a consent decree, according to the rulings in ''Firefighters v. City of Cleveland''<ref name=mengler1987 /><ref name=":9">{{ussc |name=Firefighters v. City of Cleveland |volume=478 |page=501 |date=1986}}.</ref> and ''Firefighters v. Stotts''<ref>{{ussc |name=Firefighters v. Stotts |volume=467 |page=561 |date=1984}}.</ref> they must have [[Subject matter jurisdiction|subject-matter jurisdiction]], and they cannot modify a consent decree when one of the parties objects.<ref name="resnik2015" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rabkin |first1=Jeremy A. |last2=Devins |first2=Neal E. |date=1987|title=Averting Government by Consent Decree: Constitutional Limits on the Enforcement of Settlements with the Federal Government |url= http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1423&context=facpubs |journal=[[Stanford Law Review]] |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=205 |doi=10.2307/1228830 |issn=0038-9765 |jstor=1228830 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> The Supreme Court's position on how much authority a judge possesses in regard to influencing how the settlement is agreed upon is conflicting. In ''Firefighters v. City of Cleveland'', the Supreme Court ruled that consent decrees "have attributes both of contracts and of judicial decrees", so consent decrees should be treated differently for different purposes.<ref name="west" /><ref name=":5" /><ref name=":9" /> In ''Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail'',<ref name=rufo>{{ussc |name=Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail |volume=502 |page=367 |date=1992}}.</ref> the Supreme Court decided that courts could take into account the changing times and circumstances for more flexibility in the administration of consent decrees.<ref name=":5" /><ref name=":8" />

In regard to litigation in [[performance rights organisation|performance rights organizations]] such as [[American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers]] and [[Broadcast Music, Inc.]] in ''[[United States v. ASCAP]]'', which began in 1941, the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] used consent decrees (which are amended according to the times and technology) to regulate how they issued blanket licenses to ensure that trade is not restrained and that the prices of licenses would not be competitive.<ref name=":10">{{cite web |last1=Curtner |first1=Gregory L. |last2=Kaur |first2=Atleen |title=Music Licenses: Rhyme or Reason for Antitrust |publisher=American Bar Association |url= https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/Forums/entsports/PublicDocuments/musiclicensesandantitrust.authcheckdam.pdf }}</ref><ref>{{cite report|url= https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1144246 |title=Transactions Costs and Administered Markets: License Contracts for Music Performance Rights |last=Einhorn |first=Michael A. |date=June 13, 2008 |publisher=Social Science Research Network |location=Rochester, New York |pages=61–74|ssrn=1144246 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Einhorn |first=Michael A. |date=2000 |title=Intellectual Property and Antitrust: Music Performing Rights in Broadcasting |url=http://mediatechcopy.com.orchid.arvixe.com/wp3/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ascapcolumbia.pdf |journal=Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts |volume=24 |pages=349 |access-date=February 12, 2018 |archive-date=February 12, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180212083654/http://mediatechcopy.com.orchid.arvixe.com/wp3/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ascapcolumbia.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Kleit |first=An |date=October 1, 2000 |title=ASCAP versus BMI (versus CBS): Modeling competition between and bundling by performance rights organizations |journal=Economic Inquiry |volume=38 |issue=4 |pages=579–590 |doi=10.1111/j.1465-7295.2000.tb00037.x |issn=1465-7295 }}</ref> The Department of Justice reviewed the music consent decrees starting 2019, and issued a statement in January 2021 that they would not be terminating them as they still offered several efficiencies in music licensing that maintained benefits to the artists.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://deadline.com/2021/01/justice-department-antitrust-division-music-licensing-1234674832/ | title = DOJ Won't Seek To Terminate Or Modify Consent Decrees Governing Music Licensing | first=  Ted | last = Johnson | date = January 15, 2021 | access-date = January 15, 2021 | work = [[Deadline Hollywood]] }}</ref>

==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>

==Effects==
Scholars find advantages and disadvantages to using the consent decree.{{sfn|Isenbergh|Rubin|1940|p=386}}{{sfn|Mengler|1987|p=294}}{{sfn|Resnik|2015|p=85}} In addition, consent decrees can affect those outside of the litigants, such as third parties and [[public interest]]s.{{sfn|Epstein|2007|p=4}}{{sfn|Dabney|1963|p=1053}}<ref>{{cite journal |last=Fieweger |first=Michael |date=January 1, 1993 |title=Consent Decrees in Prison and Jail Reform: Relaxed Standard of Review for Government Motions to Modify Consent Decrees |url= https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6766&context=jclc |journal=Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology |volume=83 |issue=4 |pages=1024–1054 |doi=10.2307/1143880 |jstor=1143880 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

===Advantages and disadvantages===
The following are advantages of using consent decrees:
* Save financial costs of [[litigation]]: Consent decrees forgo a [[court trial]] that allows for both parties and the courts to save [[legal expense]]s.{{sfn|Fieweger|1993|p=1025}}{{sfn|Consent Decrees|1922|pp=345–346}}{{sfn|Epstein|2007|p=4}}{{sfn|Baradaran-Robinson|2003|p=1340}}{{sfn|Isenbergh|Rubin|1940|p=387}}<ref>{{cite journal |last=Keating |first=Gregory C. |title=Settling through Consent Decree in Prison Reform Litigation: Exploring the Effects of ''Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail'' |journal=Boston College Law Review |date=1992 |pages=163–201 |url= http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1967&context=bclr |volume=34 }}</ref>
* Save the time of prolonged litigation: The parties and the courts save the time it would take for a court trial to occur{{sfn|Baradaran-Robinson|2003|p=1340}} and the courts more quickly clear their [[Docket (court)|dockets]].{{sfn|Resnik|2015|p=67}}{{sfn|Keating|1992|p=164}}
* Ability to get results of a [[trial]]: The parties are able to obtain similar results of a court trial, specifically where a change is required to appease the dispute.{{sfn|Resnik|2015|p=63}}{{sfn|Isenbergh|Rubin|1940|pp=387, 405}}
* Parties avoid the uncertainties of a trial: Consent decrees forgo a trial and its unknown outcome, the necessity of [[legal burden of proof|proof]], and any [[guilt (law)|guilt]] is taken for granted (because no one is accused by the consent decree).{{sfn|Fieweger|1993|p=1025}}{{sfn|Consent Decrees|1922|pp=345–346}}{{sfn|Resnik|2015|p=63}}{{sfn|Baradaran-Robinson|2003|p=1340}}{{sfn|Isenbergh|Rubin|1940|p=387}}{{sfn|Keating|1992|p=164}}
* Parties have control of the remedial plan: Consent decrees allow both parties to have greater latitude in deciding how to remedy their issues.{{sfn|Fieweger|1993|p=1025}}{{sfn|Epstein|2007|p=4}}{{sfn|Baradaran-Robinson|2003|pp=1339–1340}}{{sfn|Keating|1992|p=164}} This is an advantage "because the parties, not the court, determine the remedy, [and] the assumption is that the remedy is better suited to the parties' needs".{{sfn|Resnik|2015|p=64}}
*More compliance and authoritativeness: Both parties more voluntarily implement their agreements if obtained by consent than by force.{{sfn|Resnik|2015|pp=63–64}}{{sfn|Keating|1992|p=191}} Moreover, to fail to act under the consent decree seems to be more a [[Infraction|violation]] of the "[[law]]" than if under a [[contract]] because the parties are "bound" and not "[[Obligation (law)|obligated]]" by the consent decree.{{sfn|Resnik|2015|pp=63–64}}{{sfn|Mengler|1987|p=292}} Its authoritativeness is reinforced by the practice that a return to court for a consent decree has a priority in the court queue.{{sfn|Resnik|2015|pp=63–64}}
*Sustained [[judicial oversight]] and [[judicial interpretation|interpretation]]: Courts can supervise that consent decrees are upheld for an indefinite period of time.{{sfn|Baradaran-Robinson|2003|p=1338}}{{sfn|Epstein|2007|p=6}}{{sfn|Keating|1992|p=164}}

In contrast, the following are disadvantages of using consent decrees:
*Duration: Some argue that "consent decrees often last for too long a period".{{sfn|Epstein|2007|p=6}} Although consent decrees are a solution to a particular issue, the context around that issue or the issue itself may change.{{sfn|Epstein|2007|p=6}}{{sfn|Keating|1992|p=167}}{{sfn|Fieweger|1993|p=1025}} However, the consent decree is neither as easy to modify nor adapt and thus can become inadequate.{{sfn|Epstein|2007|p=6}}{{sfn|Keating|1992|p=167}}
*Ambition: Consent decrees can be an avenue for those seeking to enact a future-oriented change that is more general and not case-specific.{{sfn|Epstein|2007|p=6}}{{sfn|Isenbergh|Rubin|1940|p=408}}{{sfn|Keating|1992|pp=164, 187}} Consent decrees are thus used "as a tool of enforcement [that is] less expensive, and sometimes more far-reaching, than [[adjudication]]",{{sfn|Resnik|2015|p=67}} especially in [[United States antitrust law|antitrust]] cases and those involving [[public institution (United States)|public institutions]].{{sfn|Epstein|2007|p=6}}{{sfn|Isenbergh|Rubin|1940|p=407}}
*Complexity: Consent decrees can be complex in questions of modification, either before{{sfn|Isenbergh|Rubin|1940|p=409}} or after{{sfn|Epstein|2007|p=6}}{{sfn|Keating|1992|p=167}} it is enacted: "the decree issued by consent cannot be modified, except by consent. Only where the consent has been obtained by fraud or given by mistake will a bill be entertained to set it aside".{{sfn|Consent Decrees|1922|p=346}}
*Ambiguity: There is ambiguity in the source of power of the consent decree,{{sfn|Resnik|2015|p=54}} the role of judges,{{sfn|Isenbergh|Rubin|1940|p=407}} and the guidelines for a consent decree.{{sfn|Resnik|2015|p=54}} Some see that "neither [[judge]]s, [[lawyer]]s, nor [[Party (law)|parties]] know exactly what they give or get when a consent decree is entered&nbsp;... [which may bear] testimony to the negative consequences of the ambiguity that surrounds consent decrees".{{sfn|Resnik|2015|p=62}}

===Third parties and public interests===
The consent decree can impact those outside of the [[party (law)|parties]], who resolve their disputes with a consent decree, especially in settling [[public institution (United States)|institutional]] reform and [[United States antitrust law|antitrust]] cases.{{sfn|Fieweger|1993|p=1025}}{{sfn|Stedman|1965|p=647}}{{sfn|Keating|1992|pp=186–187}} From ''[[Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail]]''<ref name=rufo /> and ''[[Swift and Company v. United States|Swift & Co. v. United States]]'',<ref name=":7" /> the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] acknowledges that "the effects of the decree on [[Third-party beneficiary|third parties]] and the [[public interest]] should be taken into account when determining whether or not a change in fact warrants&nbsp;... the decree".{{sfn|Fieweger|1993|p=1024}}{{sfn|Keating|1992|p=191}} There is criticism that "the antitrust consent decree is an opaque form of [[government regulation]] that operates without many of the [[checks and balances]] that constrain and shape ordinary [[regulatory agency|regulatory]] programs".{{sfn|Epstein|2007|p=vii}} So, some argue that the use of consent decrees in [[United States antitrust law|antitrust]] cases and with [[public institution (United States)|public institutions]] can negatively affect [[third-party beneficiary|third parties]] and [[public interest]]s.{{sfn|Stedman|1965|p=629}}{{sfn|Isenbergh|Rubin|1940|pp=407, 409}}{{sfn|Keating|1992|p=165, 187}}{{sfn|Mengler|1987|p=292}}

== Consent decree in popular media ==
Consent decrees have appeared in various forms of popular media, often as plot devices to explore legal and political themes. 

In the 2024 TV series ''[[Elsbeth (TV series)|Elsbeth]]'', starring [[Carrie Preston]], the intricacies of consent decrees are highlighted. The show, a spinoff of ''[[The Good Wife]]'' and ''[[The Good Fight]]'', follows the lawyer Elsbeth Tascioni as she follows the NYPD where she is assigned to oversee a monitorship or consent decree after some controversial arrests.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Loofbourow |first=Lili |date=2024-02-29 |title='Elsbeth' is a well-executed, frothy delight |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/2024/02/29/elsbeth-review-carrie-preston-good-wife/ |access-date=2024-06-06 |newspaper=Washington Post}}</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

{{United States antitrust law|state=collapsed}}

[[Category:Legal procedure]]
[[Category:Judgment (law)]]
[[Category:United States antitrust law]]
[[Category:American legal terminology]]