In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in "United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.", that to promote finality, a court's changes to consent a decree should be rare—but the courts can modify a consent decree or frame injunctive relief to ensure the litigation achieves its purpose. Before a judge can enter a consent decree, according to the rulings in "Firefighters v. City of Cleveland" and "Firefighters v. Stotts" they must have subject-matter jurisdiction, and they cannot modify a consent decree when one of the parties object. The Supreme Court's position on how much authority a judge possesses in regard to influencing how the settlement is agreed upon is conflicting. In "Firefighters v. City of Cleveland", the Supreme Court ruled that consent decrees "have attributes both of contracts and of judicial decrees", so consent decrees should be treated differently for different purposes. In "Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail", the Supreme Court decided that courts could take into account the changing times and circumstances for more flexibility in the administration of consent decrees.