Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 68.0

10 

BROWN v. PLATA 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

witnesses  and  decided  to  split  the  difference.    But  the 
ability of judges to spit back or even average-out numbers
spoon-fed  to  them  by  expert  witnesses  does  not  render 
them  competent  decisionmakers  in  areas  in  which  they
are otherwise unqualified.

The District Court also relied heavily on the views of the
Receiver  and  Special  Master,  and  those  reports  play  a 
starring role in the Court’s opinion today.  The Court notes 
that  “the  Receiver  and  the  Special  Master  filed  reports 
stating  that  overcrowding  posed  a  significant  barrier  to
their  efforts”  and  deems  those  reports  “persuasive  evi-
dence  that,  absent  a  reduction  in  overcrowding,  any  rem-
edy might prove unattainable and would at the very least 
require vast expenditures of resources by the State.”  Ante, 
at 31–32.  The use of these reports is even less consonant 
with the traditional judicial role than the District Court’s 
reliance on the expert testimony at trial.  The latter, even 
when,  as  here,  it  is  largely  the  expression  of  policy  judg-
ments, is at least subject to cross-examination.  Relying on
the  un-cross-examined  findings  of  an  investigator,  sent 
into the field to prepare a factual report and give sugges-
tions  on  how  to  improve  the  prison  system,  bears  no  re-
semblance  to  ordinary  judicial  decisionmaking.    It  is  true 
that  the  PLRA  contemplates  the  appointment  of  Special 
Masters (although not Receivers), but Special Masters are 
authorized  only  to  “conduct  hearings  and  prepare  pro-
posed  findings  of  fact”  and  “assist  in  the  development  of 
remedial  plans,”  18  U. S. C.  §3626(f)(6).    This  does  not 
authorize  them  to  make  factual  findings  (unconnected  to
hearings)  that  are  given  seemingly  wholesale  deference. 
Neither the Receiver nor the Special Master was selected
by California to run its prisons, and the fact that they may 
be experts in the field of prison reform does not justify the 
judicial imposition of their perspectives on the state.