In Marino et al. v. Ortiz et al., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a settlement agreement reached in an employment discrimination lawsuit was not subject to appeal by non-parties to the original suit, even if they were affected by it. The case arose when two groups of New York City transit police officers filed separate lawsuits against their employer alleging racial discrimination in promotions. A settlement was reached which favored Hispanic and black officers over white and female officers who had also claimed discrimination but were not parties to the lawsuit. These aggrieved officers sought to challenge this settlement, but both lower courts denied them standing because they weren't part of the original litigation or negotiation process for the consent decree (settlement). On review, the Supreme Court affirmed these decisions stating that only parties involved in a legal action have rights or control over its outcome; thus those not party cannot usually contest its results.

In the dissenting opinion for Marino et al. v. Ortiz et al., Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White and O'Connor, argued that the Supreme Court should not have dismissed the petitioners' appeal due to lack of jurisdiction. The majority ruled that since a class-action settlement was not explicitly approved or disapproved but merely "fair" and "reasonable", it did not constitute a final decision on the merits of the case, thus barring appellate review under 28 U.S.C §1291. However, Scalia contended this interpretation was incorrect as it ignored previous precedents where settlements were treated as final decisions subject to appeal if they effectively denied relief sought in litigation. He also criticized how such an approach could potentially allow collusion between parties to prevent judicial review of unfair settlements by structuring them in ways that avoid explicit court approval or disapproval.