Summary

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail…

The duty of the District Court is not to formulate the decree with the fewest provisions, but to consider the various interests involved and, in the sound exercise of its discretion, to fashion the remedy that it believes to be best. [2] Similarly, a consent decree reflects the parties' understanding of the best remedy, and, subject to judicial approval, the parties to a consent decree enjoy at least as broad discretion as the District Court in formulating the remedial decree.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail…

Mere foreseeability in the sense that it was an event that "could conceivably arise" during the life of the consent decree, see ante, at 385, should not, of course, disqualify an unanticipated development from justifying a modification. But the parties should be charged with notice of those events that reasonably prudent litigants would contemplate when negotiating a settlement. Given the realities of today's society, it is not surprising that the District Court found a continued growth in inmate population to be within petitioners' contemplation.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail…

The fact that double celling affords petitioners the easiest and least expensive method of responding to a reasonably foreseeable problem is not an adequate justification for compromising a central purpose of the decree. In this regard, the Court misses the point in its observation that " [i] f modification of one term of a consent decree defeats the purpose of the decree, obviously modification would be all but impossible."
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature