In the United States v. Swift & Company case in 1925, the Supreme Court ruled that a consent decree could be modified if there were significant changes in facts or law. The court held that it had inherent power to modify its own injunctions and decrees when circumstances changed significantly enough to make their enforcement inequitable. This ruling came about after several meatpacking companies, including Swift & Co., agreed to a consent decree with the government in 1903 which limited their business practices due to antitrust concerns. However, over time these restrictions became outdated and burdensome for the businesses involved as market conditions evolved significantly since they were first imposed. Therefore, based on this change of circumstance argument by Swift & Co., Justice Benjamin Cardozo delivered an opinion allowing modification of such decrees.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Swift & Company, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to modify a decree without trial or evidence. He argued that this action violated due process rights and exceeded judicial power by effectively creating new legislation rather than interpreting existing laws. Furthermore, he contended that it was inappropriate for the court to base its decision on facts not presented in court but instead gathered from outside sources such as newspapers and public documents. This approach undermined the adversarial system of justice where each party has an opportunity to present their case and challenge opposing arguments before a neutral judge or jury. In conclusion, Justice McReynolds believed that modifying decrees based on external information threatened fundamental principles of fairness and impartiality in legal proceedings.