Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail
502 U.S. 367 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The strict "grievous wrong" standard from United States v. Swift & Co. does not apply to requests to modify consent decrees in institutional reform litigation. Instead, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), a court should apply a more flexible standard, requiring the moving party to establish that a significant change in facts or law warrants revision of the decree and that the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances.
Facts:
- In 1971, pretrial detainees at the Suffolk County Jail, a facility built in 1848, were held in what a federal court found to be unconstitutional conditions.
- The facility suffered from numerous deficiencies, including the practice of housing two inmates in cells designed for one person.
- In 1979, the parties entered into a consent decree to build a new jail, with an architectural program based on projections that the inmate population would decline over the subsequent years.
- Contrary to projections, the pretrial detainee population in Suffolk County increased dramatically throughout the 1980s.
- By the time the new jail opened, it was already overcrowded, leading the Sheriff to propose double-bunking inmates in 197 cells originally designed for single occupancy.
- The Sheriff argued this modification was necessary due to the severe overcrowding, which was forcing the release of some detainees and the transfer of others to distant facilities.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1971, inmates of the Suffolk County Jail sued the sheriff and other officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
- In 1973, the District Court found the conditions unconstitutional and enjoined further use of the jail after 1976 and the practice of double-celling.
- After years of litigation, the parties entered into a consent decree in 1979, which was approved by the District Court and included plans for a new jail with single-occupancy cells.
- In 1985, the District Court granted a motion to modify the decree to allow for a larger facility due to an 'unanticipated' population increase, but the single-cell requirement was maintained.
- In 1989, the Sheriff (petitioner) filed a motion in the District Court to modify the consent decree again, seeking to allow double-bunking in the new jail.
- The District Court, applying the strict 'grievous wrong' standard from United States v. Swift & Co., denied the motion.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) require a party seeking to modify an institutional reform consent decree to make a clear showing of a "grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen conditions"?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. A party seeking to modify a consent decree in the context of institutional reform litigation is not required to meet the strict 'grievous wrong' standard. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) permits a more flexible approach, where a court may modify a decree if a party establishes that a significant change in factual conditions or in law makes continued enforcement of the decree inequitable. The Court reasoned that institutional reform decrees often remain in place for long periods, making them susceptible to changes in facts and law. The public interest and the complex nature of such litigation necessitate a standard that allows for practical adjustments, unlike the commercial antitrust context of the original Swift case.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No. While agreeing that a flexible standard is appropriate, the dissent argues that even under this standard, the District Court's refusal to modify the decree should have been affirmed. The dissent reasoned that the increase in the inmate population was foreseeable, and the single-celling requirement was a central, bargained-for purpose of the decree. Allowing modification of such a crucial term undermines the finality of judgments and the settlement process, especially given the petitioners' history of noncompliance. The petitioners should not be relieved of their commitment simply because it has become inconvenient.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
No. The judgment should be vacated and the case remanded because the District Court abused its discretion by taking too narrow a view of its own authority, not because of the specific standard announced by the majority. The District Court erroneously believed it was constrained by three things: the strict Swift standard, an inability to consider fiscal constraints, and the idea that any modification would improperly set aside the decree's obligations. While agreeing with the remand, the concurrence expresses concern that the majority's opinion might unduly limit the District Court's discretion on remand, particularly regarding the importance of the single-celling provision and the degree of deference owed to local officials.
Analysis:
This decision significantly lowers the bar for modifying consent decrees in institutional reform litigation, such as cases involving prisons, schools, or other public institutions. By replacing the nearly impossible 'grievous wrong' standard with a more flexible test, the Court made it easier for government defendants to adapt long-term decrees to changed circumstances like budget cuts, population growth, or shifts in legal doctrine. This ruling prioritizes practicality and deference to local governance over the rigid finality of judgments, which may encourage settlements but also creates uncertainty about their long-term enforceability and the protections they afford plaintiffs.
