Consent Decree: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects: Others
Contributor:
HandWiki

A consent decree is an agreement or settlement that resolves a dispute between two parties without admission of guilt (in a criminal case) or liability (in a civil case), and most often refers to such a type of settlement in the United States . 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. It is similar to and sometimes referred to as an antitrust decree, stipulated judgment, settlement agreements, or consent judgment. Consent decrees are frequently used by federal courts to ensure that businesses and industries adhere to regulatory laws in areas such as antitrust law, employment discrimination, and environmental regulation.

  • monetary exchanges
  • regulation
  • liability

1. Legal Process

The process of introducing a consent decree begins with negotiation.[1] One of the three 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.[1][2][3] The court is meant to turn this agreement into a judicial decree.[3][4][5][6] In many cases, the request for entry of a consent decree prompts judges to sign the documents presented then and there.[1][5] In some cases, however, such as criminal cases, the judge must make some sort of assessments before the court’s entry of the agreement as a consent decree.[1]

The usual consent decree is not self-executing.[4] A consent decree is implemented when the parties transform their agreements from paper to reality.[1][3][7] The judge who signed the decree may have no involvement or may monitor the implementation.[1][5] 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.[1] In this case, the offending party would be committed for contempt.[4]

Decrees by consent are more binding than those issued in invitum, or against an unwilling party,[8] which are subject to modification by the same court, and reversal by higher courts.[4] 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.[4] Errors of law or of inferences from the facts may invalidate it completely.[4][5]

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 is not a sentence or admission of guilt.[4][9][10] Likewise, the consent decree prevents a finding of facts, so the decree cannot be pleaded as res adjudicata.[3][4][11]

2. 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 without a party conceding criminal responsibility.[12][13]

Frederick Polluck and Frederic Maitland describe how courts during the twelfth 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.[1][14] In the United States, 19th and 20th century legal treatises[15][16][17] 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."[1][18]

2.1. 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,[1] lay many of the legal foundations that govern the use of consent decree.[19][20] Creating space for courts, which are important actors in implementing a consent decree, to enter into a settlement, Rule 23[21] of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure gives federal district courts the power to approve class action settlements as long as they are "fair, reasonable, and adequate."[1][12][19] 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,[22] and Rule 58 describes the procedure of how parties may enter judgment.[23][24] Additionally, Rule 60 describes conditions under which parties can be granted "relief from a judgment or order" (such as a consent decree).[25][26] As Rule 48 in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, stipulates that dismissals in criminal cases may not occur without "leave of court,"[1][27] simultaneously, Rule 41 allows, if all the parties agree, the court to dismiss any suit (besides class action suits, shareholder derivative suits, or bankruptcy action).[28][29] Many of these rules create the space for consent decree by establishing the role of judges within the settlement of two parties.[19][30]

2.2. 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.[1][12][20][31] The role of the judge in regard to consent decree wavers between "rubber stamping" versus applying their own judgments to a proposed settlement.[12][32] 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.[1][33] In regard to antitrust decrees, the first consent decree used in antitrust regulation under the Sherman Antitrust Act was Swift & Co. v. United States.[34][35] 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.[24][34][36] The Supreme Court supported this limited flexibility of consent decrees in United States v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n: "[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."[28][37]

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 injunctive relief to ensure the litigation achieves its purpose.[28][38] Before a judge can enter a consent decree, according to the rulings in Firefighters v. City of Cleveland[28][39] and Firefighters v. Stotts[40] they must have subject-matter jurisdiction, and they cannot modify a consent decree when one of the parties object.[1][41] 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.[12][24][39] In Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail,[42] the Supreme Court decided that courts could take into account the changing times and circumstances for more flexibility in the administration of consent decrees.[24][36]

In regard to litigation in 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 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.[43][44][45][46]

3. Most Frequent Uses

3.1 Antitrust Law

Violations of 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.[47] This act began to address the complexities of antitrust economic regulation[48] by recognizing the use of consent decrees as a method for the enforcement of federal antitrust legislation.[48][49] In amending the antitrust statutes laid out in the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890) and its supplement, the Clayton Antitrust Act (1914),[43] 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 Justice Department.[1][12][36][50] In regard to antitrust decrees, the first consent decree used in antitrust regulation under the Sherman Antitrust Act was Swift & Co. v. United States[35] in which the Court used its power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the Chicago meat trust as an unlawful economic monopoly.[34][51] In Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States, the government used consent decrees to dissolve the horizontal monopoly that John D. Rockefeller had established.[34][36][52] Other examples of antitrust consent decrees can be found in a wide range of areas, including their involvement in corporations specializing in technology,[36][53] the film industry,[54][55] and the motor vehicle industry.[12][56][57]

3.2. Structural Reform

School desegregation

The effort to desegregate American public schools began in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education. This 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, which requires that states must not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[58] 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".[59] 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"[60] within school systems, including the limited use of busing,[61][62] racial quotas,[63] the creation of magnet schools and judicial placement of new schools,[64] and the redrawing of school attendance zones.[65] 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[66] ruling—which include, student assignment, faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities.[67][68]

Police use of violence

Consent decrees have been signed by a number of cities concerning their police departments' use of force policies and practices,[69] including New Orleans,[70] Oakland,[71] Los Angeles —whose consent decree was lifted in 2013[72]—and Albuquerque.[73]

3.3. 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.[74] Examples have included Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and environmental safety provisions.

Actions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964

Title VII prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, or national origin.[75] 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.[76][77] These may include decrees that require the creation of new recruitment and hiring procedures to gain a more diverse pool of job applicants,[78][79] upgrading job and promotion assignment systems,[80][81] or offering training programs focusing on discrimination and diversity[82][83] 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.[84] In a landmark decision in 1973, the EEOC, 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.[85] 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.[86][87]

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.[88][89] 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.[90] Examples of altered practices through the use of a decree have included restructuring building property[91][92] or the removal of barriers[93] to allow for physical accessibility for all persons, providing supplemental communication tools such as sign language interpreters[94] for those that are hard of hearing, and eliminating discriminatory practices against those that have a disability.[95]

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 Environmental Protection Agency and the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group.[96] 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 harmful substances on an industry-by-industry basis rather than by singular pollutants.[97][98] This decree went on to shape the regulations and administration procedures of water policy within the United States, particularly through the Clean Water Act.[99][100]

4. Effects

Scholars find advantages and disadvantages to using the consent decree.[101][102][103] In addition, consent decrees can affect those outside of the litigants, such as third parties and public interests.[104][105][106]

4.1. 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 expenses.[10][104][107][108][109][110]
  • Save the time of prolonged litigation: The parties and the courts save the time it would take for a court trial to occur[109] and the courts more quickly clear their dockets.[111][112]
  • 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.[113][114]
  • Parties avoid the uncertainties of a trial: Consent decrees forgo a trial and its unknown outcome, the necessity of proof, and any guilt is taken for granted (because no one is accused by the consent decree).[10][107][108][109][112][113]
  • Parties have control of the remedial plan: Consent decrees allow both parties to have greater latitude in deciding how to remedy their issues.[104][107][112][115] 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."[116]
  • More compliance and authoritativeness: Both parties more voluntarily implement their agreements if obtained by consent than by force.[117][118] Moreover, to fail to act under the consent decree seems to be more a violation of the "law" than if under a contract because the parties are "bound" and not "obligated" by the consent decree.[117][119] Its authoritativeness is reinforced by the practice that a return to court for a consent decree has a priority in the court queue.[117]
  • Sustained judicial oversight and interpretation: Courts can supervise that consent decrees are upheld for an indefinite period of time.[112][120][121]

In contrast, the following are disadvantages of using consent decrees:

  • Duration: Some argue that "consent decrees often last for too long a period."[121] Although consent decrees are a solution to a particular issue, the context around that issue or the issue itself may change.[107][121][122] However, the consent decree is neither as easy to modify nor adapt and thus can become inadequate.[121][122]
  • Ambition: Consent decrees can be an avenue for those seeking to enact a future-oriented change that is more general and not case-specific.[121][123][124] Consent decrees are thus used "as a tool of enforcement [that is] less expensive, and sometimes more far-reaching, than adjudication,"[111] especially in antitrust cases and those involving public institutions.[121][125]
  • Complexity: Consent decrees can be complex in questions of modification, either before[126] or after[121][122] 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."[127]
  • Ambiguity: There is ambiguity in the source of power of the consent decree,[128] the role of judges,[125] and the guidelines for a consent decree.[128] Some see that "neither judges, lawyers, nor parties know exactly what they give or get when a consent decree is entered...[which may bear] testimony to the negative consequences of the ambiguity that surrounds consent decrees."[129]

4.2. Third Parties and Public Interests

The consent decree can impact those outside of the parties, who resolve their disputes with a consent decree, especially in settling institutional reform and antitrust cases.[107][130][131] From Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail[42] and Swift & Co. v. United States,[34] the Supreme Court acknowledges that "the effects of the decree on third parties and the public interest should be taken into account when determining whether or not a change in fact warrants... the decree."[118][132] 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 programs."[133] So, some argue that the use of consent decrees in antitrust cases and with public institutions can negatively affect third parties and public interests.[119][134][135][136]

The content is sourced from: https://handwiki.org/wiki/Social:Consent_decree

References

  1. Resnik, Judith (7 December 2015). "Judging Consent". University of Chicago Legal Forum 1987 (1). ISSN 0892-5593. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=uclf. 
  2. Isenbergh, Maxwell S.; Rubin, Seymour J. (1940). "Antitrust Enforcement Through Consent Decrees". Harvard Law Review 53 (3): 386-414. doi:10.2307/1333475. ISSN 0017-811X.  https://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F1333475
  3. Kane, Mary Kay (2001). Civil Procedure in a Nutshell. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publ.. ISBN 978-0-314-09398-1. OCLC 249079229.  http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/249079229
  4. "Consent Decrees". Columbia Law Review 22 (4): 344-348. 1922. doi:10.2307/1111304. ISSN 0010-1958.  https://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F1111304
  5. Schwarzschild, Maimon (1 November 1984). "Public Law by Private Bargain: Title VII Consent Decrees and the Fairness of Negotiated Institutional Reform". Duke Law Journal 33 (5): 887-936. ISSN 0012-7086. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2890&context=dlj. 
  6. Isenbergh & Rubin 1940, pp. 388–389.
  7. Isenbergh & Rubin 1940, p. 392.
  8. "in invitum". Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in+invitum. Retrieved 6 April 2014. 
  9. Kane, Mary Kay (1996). Civil Procedure: In a Nutshell (4th ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota: West. ISBN 978-0-314-06641-1. OCLC 611673986.  http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/611673986
  10. Isenbergh & Rubin 1940, p. 387.
  11. Isenbergh & Rubin 1940, p. 394.
  12. Lehman, Jeffrey; Phelps, Shirelle (2005). "Consent Decree". West's Encyclopedia of American Law. 3 (2nd ed.). Detroit: Thomson/Gale. ISBN 978-0-7876-6370-4. OCLC 54544166.  http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/54544166
  13. First, Harry; Fox, Eleanor M.; Hemli, Daniel E. (20 July 2012). Procedural and Institutional Norms in Antitrust Enforcement: The U.S. System (Report). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. 
  14. Pollock, Frederick; Maitland, Frederic William (1899). The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I. 2. Cambridge: University Press. OCLC 919797536. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo1.ark:/13960/t5bc4jc23;view=1up;seq=9. 
  15. Freeman, A. C; Tuttle, Edward W (1925). A Treatise on the Law of Judgments (5th ed.). San Francisco: Bankroft-Whitney. OCLC 184847752.  http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/184847752
  16. Millar, Robert Wymes (1952). Civil Procedure of the Trial Court in Historical Perspective: Publ. by the Law Center of New York University. The Judicial Administration Series. New York: The national Conference of Judicial Councils. pp. 356. OCLC 608618071.  http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/608618071
  17. Fletcher, William Meade (1902). A Treatise on Equity Pleading and Practice, With Illustrative Forms and Precedents,. Saint Paul: Keefe Davidson Company. OCLC 1547525. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112104662368;view=1up;seq=7. 
  18. Ludes, Francis J.; Gilbert, Harold J. (1947). Corpus Juris Secundum. XLIX. The American Law Book Co. § 178 p. 308. https://archive.org/stream/corpusjurissecun006795mbp#page/n327/mode/2up. 
  19. Tobias, Carl (1 January 1989). "Public Law Litigation and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure". Cornell Law Review 74 (2): 270. ISSN 0010-8847. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3405&context=clr. 
  20. Chayes, Abram. "The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation". Harvard Law Review 89 (7): 1281. doi:10.2307/1340256.  https://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F1340256
  21. "Rule 23. Class Actions". Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23. 
  22. "Rule 54: Judgement; Costs". Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_54. 
  23. "Rule 58: Entering Judgement". Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_58#rule_58. 
  24. Zitko, Robert R. (1994). "The Appealability of Conditional Consent Judgments". University of Illinois Law Review 1994: 241. 
  25. "Rule 60: Relief from a Judgement or Order". Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_58#rule_60. 
  26. Tobias 1989, p. 320.
  27. "Rule 48: Dismissal". Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_58#rule_48. 
  28. Mengler, Thomas M. (1987). "Consent Decree Paradigms: Models without Meaning". Boston College Law Review 29. 
  29. "Rule 41: Search and Seizure". Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_58#rule_41. 
  30. Resnik, Judith (1989). "The Domain of Courts". University of Pennsylvania Law Review 137 (6): 2219-2230. doi:10.2307/3312214. ISSN 0041-9907. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1929&context=fss_papers. 
  31. Ziko 1994, p. 243.
  32. Anderson, Lloyd C. (1996). "United States v. Microsoft, Antitrust Consent Decrees, and the Need for a Proper Scope of Judicial Review". Antitrust Law Journal 65: 40. 
  33. Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Ketchum, 111 U.S. 505 (1884). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/111/505/
  34. Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/196/375/
  35. McBride, Alez (2006). "Swift & Co. v. U.S. (1905)". Thirteen: Media with Impact. PBS. https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/landmark_swift.html. 
  36. Epstein, Richard A. (2007). Antitrust Consent Decrees in Theory and Practice: Why Less Is More. Washington, DC: AEI Press. ISBN 978-0-8447-4250-2. 
  37. United States v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n, 224 U.S. 383 (1912). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/224/383/
  38. United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 391 U.S. 244 (1968). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/244/
  39. Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/478/501/
  40. Firefighters v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561 (1984). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/561/
  41. Rabkin, Jeremy A.; Devins, Neal E. (1987). "Averting Government by Consent Decree: Constitutional Limits on the Enforcement of Settlements with the Federal Government". Stanford Law Review 40 (1): 205. doi:10.2307/1228830. ISSN 0038-9765. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1423&context=facpubs. 
  42. Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/502/367/
  43. Curtner, Gregory L.; Kaur, Atleen. Music Licenses: Rhyme or Reason for Antitrust. The American Bar Association. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/Forums/entsports/PublicDocuments/musiclicensesandantitrust.authcheckdam.pdf. 
  44. Einhorn, Michael A. (13 June 2008). Transactions Costs and Administered Markets: License Contracts for Music Performance Rights (Report). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. pp. 61–74. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1144246. 
  45. Einhorn, Michael A. (2000). "Intellectual Property and Antitrust: Music Performing Rights in Broadcasting". Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts 24: 349. http://mediatechcopy.com.orchid.arvixe.com/wp3/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ascapcolumbia.pdf. 
  46. Kleit, An (1 October 2000). "ASCAP versus BMI (versus CBS): modeling competition between and bundling by performance rights organizations". Economic Inquiry 38 (4): 579-590. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2000.tb00037.x. ISSN 1465-7295.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1465-7295.2000.tb00037.x
  47. Kramer, Victor H. (1958). "Modification of Consent Decrees: A Proposal to the Antitrust Division". Michigan Law Review 56 (7): 1051-1066. doi:10.2307/1285759. ISSN 0026-2234.  https://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F1285759
  48. Isenbergh & Rubin 1940, pp. 386–414.
  49. Stedman, Robert (31 May 1965). "Consent Decrees and the Private Action: An Antitrust Dilemma". California Law Review 53 (2): 627–654. doi:10.15779/Z38647H. https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2986&context=californialawreview. 
  50. Mengler 1987, pp. 291–346.
  51. "Swift & Co. v. United States". The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 25 September 2015. Archived from the original on 2015-09-25. https://web.archive.org/web/20150925041421/https://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1904/1904_103. 
  52. Stedman 1965, pp. 631–632.
  53. United States v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Circ. 2001). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/253/34/576095/
  54. United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 344 U.S. 131, 141 (1948). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/344/131/#141
  55. "Legislation by Consent in the Motion Picture Industry". The Yale Law Journal 50 (5): 854-875. 1941. doi:10.2307/792512. ISSN 0044-0094.  https://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F792512
  56. Chrysler Corp. v. United States, 316 U.S. 556 (1942). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/556/
  57. Dabney, Seth M. (1958). "Antitrust Consent Decrees: How Protective an Umbrella". Yale Law Journal 68: 1391–1407. 
  58. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/#495
  59. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 295 (1954). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/349/294/#295
  60. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 15 (1971). U.S., 15. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/402/1/#15
  61. Swann, 402 U.S. at 29–31.
  62. Green, Preston Cary (1999). "Can State Constitutional Provisions Eliminate De Facto Segregation in the Public Schools?". The Journal of Negro Education 68 (2): 138-153. doi:10.2307/2668121. ISSN 0022-2984.  https://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F2668121
  63. Swann, 402 U.S. at 22–25.
  64. Williams, G. Scott (1987). "Unitary School Systems and Underlying Vestiges of State-Imposed Segregation". Columbia Law Review 87 (4): 794-816. doi:10.2307/1122610. ISSN 0010-1958.  https://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F1122610
  65. Swann, 402 U.S. at 27–29.
  66. Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/430/
  67. Green, 391 U.S. at 435.
  68. Baradaran-Robinson 2003, p. 1346.
  69. Kelly, Kimbriell; Childress, Sarah; Rich, Steven (November 13, 2015). "Forced Reforms, Mixed Results". The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/11/13/forced-reforms-mixed-results/. Retrieved November 10, 2016. 
  70. Dall, Tania (April 20, 2016). "Residents say consent decree changes are negatively impacting the community". WWL. http://www.wwltv.com/news/local/residents-say-consent-decree-changes-are-negatively-impacting-the-community/145985013. 
  71. Swan, Rachel (July 10, 2016). "Oakland police misconduct cases raise questions on oversight". San Francisco Chronicle. http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-police-misconduct-cases-raise-doubts-on-8350857.php. Retrieved November 10, 2016. 
  72. Rubin, Joel (May 16, 2013). "Federal judge lifts LAPD consent decree". Los Angeles Times. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/16/local/la-me-lapd-consent-decree-20130517. 
  73. Proctor, Jeff (October 31, 2014). "APD specialized squads, Internal Affairs getting overhaul in DOJ consent decree". KRQE. http://krqe.com/2014/10/31/apd-specialized-squads-internal-affairs-getting-overhaul-in-doj-consent-decree/. 
  74. Schwarzschild 1984, p. 887.
  75. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-2
  76. "Remedies for Employment Discrimination". U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/remedies.cfm. 
  77. Hegewisch, Ariane; Deitch, Cynthia H.; Murphy, Evelyn F. (2011). Ending Sex and Race Discrimination in the Workplace: Legal Interventions That Push the Envelope. Institute for Women's Policy Research. ISBN 978-1-933161-06-8. 
  78. Bockman, et al. and EEOC v. Lucky Stores, Inc, 108 F.R.D., 11 (C.D. Cal 1986). https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=condec
  79. EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 147 F. Supp. 2d, 980 (D. Ariz.). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/147/980/2408986/
  80. Abdallah v. Coca-Cola Co., 133 F. Supp. 2d, 1364 (N.D. Ga. 2001). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/133/1364/2292835/
  81. Dorman v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., So. 2d., 50–56 (M.D. Fla. 2000). https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=condec
  82. Kosen, et al. v. American Express Financial Advisors, Inc. et al., page 21 (D.D.C.). Text https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1085&context=condec
  83. Butler v. Home Depot Case Number: C 95-2182 SI; C 94-4335 SI Pages, 33-36
  84. "The Law". U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/thelaw/. 
  85. "Milestones". U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/milestones/1973.html. 
  86. Green, Venus (26 April 2012). "Flawed Remedies: EEOC, AT&T, and Sears Outcomes Reconsidered". Black Women, Gender & Families 6 (1). ISSN 1944-6462.  http://www.worldcat.org/issn/1944-6462
  87. Williams, Benton (October 2008). "AT&T and the Private-Sector Origins of Private-Sector Affirmative Action". Journal of Policy History 20 (4): 542-568. doi:10.1353/jph.0.0027. ISSN 1528-4190.  https://dx.doi.org/10.1353%2Fjph.0.0027
  88. "Introduction to the ADA". United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. https://www.ada.gov/ada_intro.htm. 
  89. 42 U.S.C. § 12112, 42 U.S.C. § 12113, and 42 U.S.C. § 12114 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12112
  90. "ADA Settlements and Consent Agreements". Americans with Disabilities Act. United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Archived from the original on 2014-07-21. https://web.archive.org/web/20140721061207/http://www.ada.gov/settlemt.htm. Retrieved 2014-04-21. 
  91. "Justice Department Reaches Agreement with Hilton Worldwide Inc. Over ADA Violations at Hilton Hotels and Major Hotel Chains Owned by Hilton". Justice News. The United States Department of Justice. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/November/10-crt-1268.html. 
  92. "United States' Opposition to Defendant United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc". United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. http://www.ada.gov/archive/uamotion.pdf. 
  93. "Settlement Agreement Concerning the Olympic Stadium". United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. http://www.ada.gov/stadiumo.htm. 
  94. "Justice Department Settles Americans with Disabilities Act Lawsuit with Virginia’s Inova Health System". Justice News. The United States Department of Justice. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/March/11-crt-392.html. 
  95. "The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Twenty Years of ADA Enforcement, Twenty Significant Cases". U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/45th/ada20/ada_cases.cfm. 
  96. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train, No. 74 Civ. 4617 (S.D.N.Y., March 1976)
  97. Trussell, R. Rhodes (1 January 2006). "Constituents of Emerging Concern: An Overview". Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 2006 (12): 1460-1467. doi:10.2175/193864706783749585. https://www.environmental-expert.com/Files/5306/articles/8864/115.pdf. 
  98. "Toxic and Priority Pollutants". Water: CWA Methods. Environmental Protection Agency. Archived from the original on 2015-02-21. https://web.archive.org/web/20150221124204/http://water.epa.gov/scitech/methods/cwa/pollutants-background.cfm. 
  99. O'Leary, Rosemary (1990). "The Courts and the EPA: The Amazing "Flannery Decision"". Natural Resources & Environment 5 (1): 18-55. ISSN 0882-3812. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rosemary_Oleary/publication/254166607_The_Courts_and_the_EPA_The_Amazing_Flannery_Decision/links/56b8157908ae3c1b79b1792f/The-Courts-and-the-EPA-The-Amazing-Flannery-Decision.pdf. 
  100. Wyche, Bradford W. (1983). "The Regulation of Toxic Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act: EPA's Ten Year Rulemaking Nears Completion". Natural Resources Lawyer 15 (3): 511-536. ISSN 0028-0747.  http://www.worldcat.org/issn/0028-0747
  101. Isenbergh & Rubin 1940, p. 386.
  102. Mengler 1987, p. 294.
  103. Resnik 2015, p. 85.
  104. Epstein 2007, p. 4.
  105. Dabney 1963, p. 1053.
  106. Fieweger, Michael (1 January 1993). "Consent Decrees in Prison and Jail Reform--Relaxed Standard of Review for Government Motions to Modify Consent Decrees". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 83 (4): 1024–1054. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6766&context=jclc. 
  107. Fieweger 1993, p. 1025.
  108. Consent Decrees 1922, pp. 345–346.
  109. Baradaran-Robinson 2003, p. 1340.
  110. Keating, Gregory C. (1992). "Settling through Consent Decree in Prison Reform Litigation: Exploring the Effects of Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail". Boston College Law Review 34: 163–201. http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1967&context=bclr. 
  111. Resnik 2015, p. 67.
  112. Keating 1992, p. 164.
  113. Resnik 2015, p. 63.
  114. Isenbergh & Rubin 1940, pp. 387, 405.
  115. Baradaran-Robinson 2003, pp. 1339–1340.
  116. Resnik 2015, p. 64.
  117. Resnik 2015, pp. 63–64.
  118. Keating 1992, p. 191.
  119. Mengler 1987, p. 292.
  120. Baradaran-Robinson 2003, p. 1338.
  121. Epstein 2007, p. 6.
  122. Keating 1992, p. 167.
  123. Isenbergh & Rubin 1940, p. 408.
  124. Keating 1992, pp. 164, 187.
  125. Isenbergh & Rubin 1940, p. 407.
  126. Isenbergh & Rubin 1940, p. 409.
  127. Consent Decrees 1922, p. 346.
  128. Resnik 2015, p. 54.
  129. Resnik 2015, p. 62.
  130. Stedman 1965, p. 647.
  131. Keating 1992, pp. 186–187.
  132. Fieweger 1993, p. 1024.
  133. Epstein 2007, p. vii.
  134. Stedman 1965, p. 629.
  135. Isenbergh & Rubin 1940, pp. 407, 409.
  136. Keating 1992, p. 165, 187.
More
©Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons-Attribution ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
Video Production Service
Feedback