Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 86.0

12 

BROWN v. PLATA 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

out-of-state  facilities  in  part  because  the  number  of  pro-
posed transfers was too small.  See id., at 160a.  See also 
ante, at 30.  But this reasoning rested on the court’s insis-
tence on a reduction in the State’s general prison popula-
tion rather than the two plaintiff classes.

When the State proposed to make a targeted transfer of 
prisoners  in  one  of  the  plaintiff  classes  (i.e.,  prisoners
needing  mental  health  treatment),  one  of  the  District 
Judges blocked the transfers for fear that the out-of-state
facilities would not provide a sufficiently high level of care.
See  App.  434–440.    The  District  Judge  even  refused  to 
allow  out-of-state  transfers  for  prisoners  who  volunteered 
for relocation.  See id., at 437.  And the court did this even 
though  there  was  not  even  an  allegation,  let  alone  clear 
evidence,  that  the  States  to  which  these  prisoners  would 
have been sent were violating the Eighth Amendment. 

The  District  Judge  presumed  that  the  receiving  States
might  fail  to  provide  constitutionally  adequate  care,  but
“ ‘in  the  absence  of  clear  evidence  to  the  contrary,  courts
presume  that  [public  officers]  have  properly  discharged
their  official  duties.’ ”    United  States  v.  Armstrong,  517 
U. S.  456,  464  (1996)  (quoting  United  States  v.  Chemical 
Foundation, Inc., 272 U. S. 1, 14–15 (1926)); Postal Service 
v.  Gregory,  534  U. S.  1,  10  (2001)  (“[A]  presumption  of 
regularity  attaches  to  the  actions  of  Government  agen-
cies”);  see  also  McKune  v.  Lile,  536  U. S.  24,  51  (2002) 
(O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (“[W]e may assume 
that the prison is capable of controlling its inmates so that 
respondent’s personal safety is not jeopardized . . . ,at least 
in the absence of proof to the contrary”).8 

Finally, as a last resort, a much smaller release of pris-

—————— 

8 The Court rejects the State’s argument that out-of-state transfers offer 
a less restrictive alternative to a prisoner release order because “requir-
ing  out-of-state  transfers  itself  qualifies  as  a  population  limit  under  the 
PLRA.”  Ante,  at  29–30.  But  the  PLRA  does  not  apply  when  the  State 
voluntarily conducts such transfers, as it has sought to do.