Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 22

16 

BROWN v. PLATA 

Opinion of the Court 

District  Courts.    When  exercising  jurisdiction  under  28
U. S. C.  §1253,  however,  this  Court  “has  not  hesitated  to
exercise  jurisdiction  ‘to  determine  the  authority  of  the
court below,’ ” including whether the three-judge court was 
properly  constituted.  Gonzalez  v.  Automatic  Employees 
Credit Union, 419 U. S. 90, 95, n. 12 (1974) (quoting Bailey 
v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31, 34 (1962) (per curiam)); see also 
Gully v. Interstate Natural Gas Co., 292 U. S. 16, 18 (1934) 
(per curiam) (“The case is analogous to those in which this 
Court,  finding  that  the  court  below  has  acted  without
jurisdiction,  exercises  its  appellate  jurisdiction  to  correct
the  improper  action”).  The  merits  of  the  decision  to  con-
vene  the  three-judge  court,  therefore,  are  properly  before 
this Court. 

2 
Before a three-judge court may be convened to consider
whether  to  enter  a  population  limit,  the  PLRA  requires 
that  the  court  have  “previously  entered  an  order  for  less
intrusive  relief  that  has  failed  to  remedy  the  deprivation
of  the  Federal  right  sought  to  be  remedied.”    18  U.  S.  C. 
§3626(a)(3)(A)(i).  This  provision  refers  to  “an  order.”  It 
is satisfied if the court has entered one order, and this sin-
gle  order  has  “failed  to  remedy”  the  constitutional  viola-
tion.  The  defendant  must  also  have  had  “a  reasonable 
amount of time to comply with the previous court orders.”
§3626(a)(3)(A)(ii).  This  provision  refers  to  the  court’s
“orders.”  It requires that the defendant have been given a
reasonable  time  to  comply  with  all  of  the  court’s  orders. 
Together, these requirements ensure that the “ ‘last resort 
remedy’ ”  of  a  population  limit  is  not  imposed  “ ‘as  a  first 
step.’ ”    Inmates  of  Occoquan  v.  Barry,  844  F. 2d  828,  843 
(CADC 1988). 

The  first  of  these  conditions,  the  previous  order  re-
quirement  of  §3626(a)(3)(A)(i),  was  satisfied  in  Coleman 
by appointment  of  a  Special  Master  in  1995,  and  it  was