502us2$26D 01-22-99 08:32:58 PAGES OPINPGT 378 RUFO v. INMATES OF SUFFOLK COUNTY JAIL Opinion of the Court Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, No. 90–1440 (CA1, Sept. 20, 1990), judgt. order reported at 915 F. 2d 1557, App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 90–954, p. 2a.5 We granted certiorari. 498 U. S. 1081 (1991). II In moving for modification of the decree, the sheriff relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which in relevant part provides: “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: . . . (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. . . .” There is no suggestion in these cases that a consent decree is not subject to Rule 60(b). A consent decree no doubt embodies an agreement of the parties and thus in some respects is contractual in nature. But it is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees. Railway Employes v. Wright, 364 U. S. 642, 650–651 (1961). The District Court recognized as much but held that Rule 60(b)(5) codified the “grievous wrong” standard of United States v. Swift & Co., supra, that a case for modification under this standard 5 Because of the overcrowding at the new Suffolk County Jail, the sheriff refused to transfer female prisoners to the new facility. He did not request modification of the decree. The District Court subsequently ordered the sheriff to house female inmates at the new jail. The sheriff appealed, and the First Circuit affirmed. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Kearney, 928 F. 2d 33 (1991). That decision is not before this Court.