Efforts to repeal U.S. public schools began in 1954 with Brown v. Council on Education. This landmark Supreme Court case concluded that racial segregation of children in public schools violates the equality clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires states “not to deny equal protection to any person in their jurisdiction the same protections of the law.”  In order to properly enforce this legislation, the Supreme Court has allowed district courts to use segregation decrees that require states to actively settle into racially non-discriminatory school systems at “all deliberate speed.”  Since the original Order in Council did not contain any specific way to do so, beginning with Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education in 1971, the Supreme Court explicitly defined the goal as the elimination of “all vestiges of state-imposed segregation”[full citation required] within school systems, including the limited use of bus transportation, racial quotas, the establishment of magnetic schools, and the judicial installation of new schools,  and the rehabilitation of school attendance zones.  To end judicial interference in schools and end the consent order by court order, districts must demonstrate the lifting of segregation under six criteria set out in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County – including the assignment of students, faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities.   Parties who terminate disputes on the basis of a consent judgment agree on the terms of a decision that will be included in the minutes after it is approved by the court. The consent decree may concern persons outside the parties who settle their disputes by a consent decree, in particular in the settlement of institutional reform and cartel cases.    In Rufo v Suffolk County Jail inmates and Swift & Co.
v. United States, the Supreme Court recognized that “the impact of the order on third parties and the public interest should be considered in determining whether or not a change is truly justified. the decree”.   It is criticized that “the antitrust approval order is an opaque form of government regulation that operates without many of the controls and balances that constrain and shape ordinary regulatory programs.”  Some therefore argue that the use of consent regulations in cartel cases and public bodies can have a negative impact on third parties and public interests.     1] n. . . .