PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 109-181.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 1, 2005
Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act - Authorizes State or local governments and related officials sued in their official capacity to file a motion to modify or vacate a consent decree upon the earlier of: (1) four years after the consent decree is originally entered; or (2) in the case of a civil action in which a State is a party or in which a local government is a party and the surrounding State is not a party, the expiration of the term of office of the highest elected State or local government official authorizing the consent decree.
Places the burden of proof with respect to such motions on the party originally filing the action to demonstrate that continued enforcement is necessary to uphold a Federal right.
Nullifies consent decrees pending a ruling on a motion to modify or vacate if the court fails to rule on such motion within 90 days of filing.
Addresses compensation and termination of special masters overseeing consent decrees.
Makes this Act applicable to all consent decrees regardless of: (1) the date on which the final order of a consent decree is entered; or (2) whether any relief has been obtained before enactment.
People & committees
Sen. Alexander, Lamar [R-TN] · R–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 109-181.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1877)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.489 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.489 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.489 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.489 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.