{
  "id": "RS22174",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RS22174",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 306489,
      "date": "2005-07-20",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:37:35.262029",
      "title": "The Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act (S. 489/H.R. 1229) - A Legal Analysis",
      "summary": "A \u201cconsent decree\u201d refers to an agreement or contract between the parties to a\nlawsuit which usually\nsettles all outstanding legal issues and is adopted by the court hearing the case as a formal judgment,\nincluding appropriate remedies and relief. Such decrees differ from litigated judgments only in that\nthey grow out of negotiation between the parties, rather than being forced on the parties by the court\nwithout their consent. In addition, they may be entered by the court at any time, frequently before\ntrial or formal presentation of evidence, and permit resolution of the controversy without the\ndefendant admitting any liability. Historically, consent decrees have frequently been used in\ninstitutional reform cases to compel state and local governmental compliance with legal and\nconstitutional requirements regarding the operation of prisons, school systems, public housing, foster\ncare, adoption, and child welfare systems, and other large public programs. \n The Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act ( S. 489 / H.R. 1229 ) would\nimpose durational limits on the effectiveness of \u201cany final order imposing injunctive\nrelief\u201d against\nstate or local governments -- or officials thereof sued in their \u201cofficial capacity\u201d --\nwhen that order\nis based in whole or part upon consent or agreement of the parties. Specific exception is made for\nprivate agreements not merged into a judicial decree and final school desegregation orders. Under\nthe proposal, any decree could be modified or vacated on motion of the governmental defendant four\nyears after the decree was originally entered or upon leaving office by the highest elected state or\nlocal official who consented to the decree, whichever is less. The burden in any such proceeding\nwould be on the class plaintiff who originally filed the action -- or the Department of Justice in cases\nfiled by the federal government -- to \u201cdemonstrate that the continued enforcement of a\nconsent\ndecree is necessary to uphold a federal right.\u201d Moreover, unless the court rules on the motion\nto\nvacate within a 90-day period, the consent decree would lapse and defendants would not be bound\nuntil a contrary decision is made. The appointment of any special master to oversee the decree would\nexpire at the same time. This report will be updated as required by events..",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS22174",
          "sha1": "1246da6b4784601a829a03a4e9d9daf623daee18",
          "filename": "files/20050720_RS22174_1246da6b4784601a829a03a4e9d9daf623daee18.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20050720_RS22174_1246da6b4784601a829a03a4e9d9daf623daee18.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}