Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 39

Cite as:  563 U. S. ____ (2011) 

33 

Opinion of the Court 

tion.  Supra, at 30–31.  Without a reduction in overcrowd-
ing,  there  will  be  no  efficacious  remedy  for  the  unconsti-
tutional  care  of  the  sick  and  mentally  ill  in  California’s 
prisons. 

D 

The  PLRA  states  that  no  prospective  relief  shall  issue 
with  respect  to  prison  conditions  unless  it  is  narrowly 
drawn,  extends  no  further  than  necessary  to  correct  the
violation  of  a  federal  right,  and  is  the  least  intrusive 
means  necessary  to  correct  the  violation.    18  U. S. C. 
§3626(a).  When determining whether these requirements
are  met,  courts  must  “give  substantial  weight  to  any  ad-
verse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal 
justice system.”  Ibid. 

1 

The  three-judge  court  acknowledged  that  its  order  “is 
likely  to  affect  inmates  without  medical  conditions  or
serious mental illness.”  Juris. App. 172a.  This is because 
reducing California’s prison population will require reduc-
ing  the  number  of  prisoners  outside  the  class  through 
steps  such  as  parole  reform,  sentencing  reform,  use  of
good-time credits, or other means to be determined by the
State.  Reducing  overcrowding  will  also  have  positive 
effects  beyond  facilitating  timely  and  adequate  access  to
medical  care,  including  reducing  the  incidence  of  prison
violence  and  ameliorating  unsafe  living  conditions.    Ac-
cording  to  the  State,  these  collateral  consequences  are
evidence  that  the  order  sweeps  more  broadly  than 
necessary.

The  population  limit  imposed  by  the  three-judge  court 
does  not  fail  narrow  tailoring  simply  because  it  will  have 
positive  effects  beyond  the  plaintiff  class.    Narrow  tailor-
ing requires a “ ‘ “fit” between the [remedy’s] ends and the
means chosen to accomplish those ends.’ ”  Board of Trus-