Critics of the agreements say they are restrictive. The Fraternal Order of Police, the country`s largest police organization, welcomed last week`s memo and said it would “ensure that approval orders are not long, agreements open with painful demands or long-term negative effects.” She added that public perception of the police had improved steadily and significantly after the adoption of approval decrees. She referred to Los Angeles, where crime has declined and residents` attitudes toward the police have improved markedly after an approval order was approved in 2001, according to a 2009 Harvard Kennedy School study. Many of the early court proceedings involving an approval order set precedents for the role that judges would play in hearing, authorizing, interpreting and amending a transaction between two parties.    The role of the judge with respect to approval decrees between “rubber stamps” and the application of his own judgments to a proposed settlement.  In 1879, the Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Ketchum combined the role of the court in the approval decrees to simply support an agreement that the parties themselves have already entered into.   With respect to cartel and abuse of dominance orders, the first approval settlement used in the Sherman Antitrust Act Agreement Regulations was Swift -Co. v. United States.  With Swift and Co.
v. United States, the Supreme Court held that an order of approval could only be amended or terminated if, over time, new developments produced a “serious injustice” in the manner in which the decision of the Order of Approval affects the parties to the appeal.   The Supreme Court has supported this limited flexibility of U.S. approval orders outside the R.R. Ass terminal: “An order will not be extended by the implication or consideration that goes beyond the importance of its conditions if it is read in light of the issues and purposes for which the appeal was brought.”   However, many of these representatives did not discuss sufficiently to curb police abuses. As a result, in 1991, Congress gave the DOJ “the legal authority to investigate law enforcement patterns and practices, such as racial profiling and excessive use of force by the Los Angeles Police Department, following the Rodney King brawl by the Los Angeles Police Department.” As a result of the investigation, the DOJ generally publishes its results, which state that there are three possible options.