Washington, DC, Nov. 06, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed an amicus curiae brief today in United States v. City of Cleveland urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to rule that excessive consent decrees like the one between the City of Cleveland and the U.S. Department of Justice are unlawful. NCLA asks the Court to require the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to terminate this consent decree, recognizing how it and similar orders violate core Constitutional principles.
A consent decree is a court judgment issued with the agreement of the parties involved, setting rules they are required to follow. The DOJ and the City of Cleveland agree that the ends of this consent decree have been achieved. They moved the District Court to terminate the decree. Under the consent decree’s own terms, only the parties to the decree—Cleveland or the DOJ—are permitted to enforce its terms. But the District Court denied that motion, and appointed an amicus curiae to represent its position that the decree should not be terminated in the Sixth Circuit appeal.
A consent decree can be a useful tool to resolve disputes and address unlawful conduct. But the consent decree at issue here suffers from several constitutional defects. First, there is no Article III case or controversy. Not only do the City of Cleveland and DOJ now agree that the decree should be terminated, but they also fully negotiated and agreed to their consent decree before a lawsuit was ever filed. The district court has not been called upon to resolve any dispute between the parties to the decree.
Further, the Cleveland Decree includes rules and regulations that exceed what the law requires, allowing the parties and the district court improperly to assume legislative powers. It also binds future administrations, regardless of whether its provisions are what the voters would mandate.
The Cleveland Decree’s problems do not stop there. It requires the parties to pursue goals so subjective that the goal posts are vague and easily moved, ensuring that its rules endure much longer than they were ever intended to last. The District Court has also defied the constitutional vesting clauses by handing executive and legislative powers to a private monitor to oversee and enforce the consent decree, powers that courts do not possess in the first place.
NCLA released the following statements:
“Cleveland’s consent decree is but one example of many ‘institutional reform decrees’ operating throughout the nation that endure sometimes for decades, imposing requirements on current and future municipalities that are not democratically enacted and that exceed the law’s requirements.”
— Caitlin M. Moyna, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA
“Democracy by perpetual consent decree is anything but. A judicial refusal to terminate a consent decree when the only parties to the decree seek to end it betrays the very idea of self-government. The citizens of Cleveland have been governed for over a decade by unelected and unaccountable court-appointed officials who lack legitimate law-making power.”
— Peggy Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA
For more information visit the amicus page here.
ABOUT NCLA
NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.
