Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60

In 1965, Congress enacted Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to provide remedial education services to disadvantaged children. The Board of Education of the City of New York first applied for Title I funds in 1966 and initially arranged to transport eligible private school students to public schools for after-school instruction. When that approach proved unsuccessful due to poor attendance and safety concerns, the Board implemented an on-site program in 1978 that sent public school teachers into parochial schools during regular school hours. In 1978, respondents, who are parents of parochial school children and federal taxpayers, sued the Board in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York challenging the on-site program as violating the Establishment Clause. The District Court enjoined the on-site services in 1981, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the following year. While the appeal was pending, the Board developed an off-premises program that required transporting students to neutral sites at an estimated additional cost of $6 million per year. In 1983, the parties entered into a consent decree requiring the Board to provide Title I services off the premises of sectarian schools and to establish a monitoring system. Following the Supreme Court's 1985 decision in Aguilar v. Felton, which invalidated a similar program, the parties entered a second consent decree that required the Board to pay for the additional costs of the off-premises program. The Board complied with both decrees, spending over $100 million on computer-aided instruction, leased sites, and transportation between the 1986-1987 and 1993-1994 school years. In 1995, the Board and a group of parents of parochial school students moved in the District Court for relief from the consent decrees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), citing subsequent decisions including Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District and Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind. The District Court denied the motion, concluding that Aguilar remained good law and that no significant change in factual conditions had been shown. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1997.

In 1974 and 1975, the Ensley Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and seven black individuals filed separate class-action complaints against the City of Birmingham and the Jefferson County Personnel Board. They alleged racially discriminatory hiring and promotion practices in public service jobs including the fire department in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal law. After a bench trial in 1976 on some issues and a second trial in 1979 focused on promotion practices but before judgment, the parties negotiated two consent decrees. One was between the black individuals and the City, and the other was between them and the Board. These proposed decrees set forth an extensive remedial scheme including long-term and interim annual goals for the hiring of blacks as firefighters and goals for promotion of blacks within the fire department. The District Court entered an order provisionally approving the decrees and directing publication of notice of the upcoming fairness hearings. Notice of the hearings with a reference to the general nature of the decrees was published in two local newspapers. At that hearing the Birmingham Firefighters Association appeared and filed objections as amicus curiae. After the hearing but before final approval the BFA and two of its members moved to intervene on the ground that the decrees would adversely affect their rights. The District Court denied the motions as untimely and approved the decrees in August 1981. Seven white firefighters, all members of the BFA, then filed a complaint against the City and the Board seeking injunctive relief against enforcement of the decrees. The District Court denied relief. Both the denial of intervention and the denial of injunctive relief were affirmed on appeal in 1983. A new group of white firefighters, the Wilks respondents, then brought suit against the City and the Board. They alleged that because of their race they were being denied promotions in favor of less qualified blacks in violation of federal law. The Board and the City admitted making race-conscious employment decisions but argued that the decisions were required by the consent decrees. The District Court granted the motion to dismiss after trial, concluding that the promotions of the black individuals were in fact required by the terms of the consent decree. On appeal the Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding that because the Wilks respondents were neither parties nor privies to the consent decrees their independent claims of unlawful discrimination are not precluded. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1988.

In 1976 the United States brought an antitrust action against petitioners, owners of various department stores, alleging that they had violated § 1 of the Sherman Act by agreeing to fix the retail price of women's clothing sold in northern California. Seven parallel civil actions were subsequently filed by private plaintiffs seeking treble damages on behalf of proposed classes of retail purchasers. These included the action of respondent Moitie in state court (Moitie I) and respondent Brown (Brown I) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Each of these complaints tracked almost verbatim the allegations of the Government's complaint, though the Moitie I complaint referred solely to state law. The District Court dismissed all of the actions in their entirety on the ground that plaintiffs had not alleged an injury to their business or property within the meaning of § 4 of the Clayton Act. Plaintiffs in five of the suits appealed that judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The single counsel representing Moitie and Brown chose not to appeal and instead refiled the two actions in state court. Although the complaints purported to raise only state-law claims, they made allegations similar to those made in the prior complaints, including that of the Government. Petitioners removed these new actions to the District Court for the Northern District of California and moved to have them dismissed on the ground of res judicata. The District Court denied respondents' motion to remand, holding that the complaints were properly removed because they raised essentially federal law claims. The court then concluded that because Moitie II and Brown II involved the same parties, the same alleged offenses, and the same time periods as Moitie I and Brown I, the doctrine of res judicata required that they be dismissed. Pending the appeal of the dismissals of the refiled actions, the Supreme Court decided Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., holding that retail purchasers can suffer an injury to their business or property as those terms are used in § 4 of the Clayton Act. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the five cases which had been appealed for further proceedings in light of Reiter. When the refiled actions came before the Court of Appeals, the court reversed the District Court's dismissals on res judicata grounds. It asserted that non-appealing parties may benefit from a reversal when their position is closely interwoven with that of appealing parties. The court concluded that the doctrine must give way to public policy and simple justice. Moitie II was voluntarily dismissed, leaving Brown II as the subject of the petition. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the validity of the Court of Appeals' novel exception to the doctrine of res judicata.

Petitioner Curtis, a Black woman, brought this action under Section 812 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 claiming that respondents, who are white, had refused to rent an apartment to her because of her race in violation of Section 804(a) of the Act. In her complaint she sought only injunctive relief and punitive damages, though a claim for compensatory damages was later added. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court granted preliminary injunctive relief enjoining the respondents from renting the apartment to anyone else pending trial on the merits. This injunction was dissolved some five months later with the petitioner's consent after she had obtained other housing, and the case went to trial on the issues of actual and punitive damages. Respondents made a timely demand for jury trial in their answer. The District Court denied the jury request and after trial on the merits found that respondents had discriminated against petitioner on account of her race. The District Court awarded $250 in punitive damages while finding no actual damages and denying petitioner's request for attorney's fees and court costs. The Court of Appeals reversed on the jury trial issue. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in view of the importance of the jury trial issue in the administration and enforcement of Title VIII.