## Facts

- Pretrial detainees at the Suffolk County Jail challenged unconstitutional jail conditions.
- A federal district court entered a consent decree requiring remedial measures, including construction of a new jail with single-occupancy cells for pretrial detainees.
- Construction delays occurred, and the pretrial detainee population grew beyond projections while the new facility was being built.
- County officials moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) to modify the decree to permit double-bunking in some cells to increase capacity.
- The officials argued modification was justified by an intervening change in constitutional doctrine concerning detention conditions and by changed factual circumstances (increased detainee population).
- The district court denied modification, applying a stringent standard requiring a clear showing of a grievous wrong caused by new and unforeseen conditions, and concluding the population increase was not new or unforeseen.
- The court of appeals affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. What standard governs modification of institutional reform consent decrees under Rule 60(b)(5): a stringent “grievous wrong” standard or a more flexible equitable standard?
2. What showing must a movant make to obtain modification of an institutional reform consent decree, and how must any modification relate to the changed circumstances?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held the stringent “grievous wrong” standard does not govern modification of institutional reform consent decrees under Rule 60(b)(5).
- The Court adopted a flexible standard requiring the movant to show a significant change in facts or law warranting revision and that the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances.
- The Court did not decide whether double-bunking should be permitted; it required the lower courts to reconsider the motion under the correct standard.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 60(b)(5) permits modification of a prospective decree when it is no longer equitable for the judgment to have prospective operation.
- In institutional reform litigation, modification is appropriate upon a showing of a significant change in factual conditions or in law.
- A significant factual change may be shown where compliance becomes substantially more onerous, the decree becomes unworkable due to unforeseen obstacles, or continued enforcement without change would harm the public interest.
- A significant legal change may support modification when obligations become impermissible under federal law or when intervening doctrine makes continued enforcement inequitable.
- Any modification must be suitably tailored to address the problems created by the changed circumstances.
- A decree may not be modified merely because compliance has become inconvenient or because officials prefer different policy choices.

## Conclusion

The Court required a flexible, equitable approach to modifying institutional reform consent decrees under Rule 60(b)(5), allowing revision upon significant changed facts or law when the requested change is narrowly fitted to those developments, and remanded for reconsideration under that framework.


Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992)