Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 51

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

45 

Opinion of the Court 

before  the  three-judge  court,  the  State  did  not  argue  that
reductions should occur over a longer period of time.  The 
State later submitted a plan for court approval that would 
achieve the required reduction within five years, and that
would  reduce  the  prison  population  to  151%  of  design 
capacity  in  two  years.    The  State  represented  that  this
plan would “safely reach a population level of 137.5% over
time.”  App.  to  Juris.  Statement  32a.    The  three-judge
court rejected this plan because it did not comply with the
deadline set by its order. 

The  State  first  had  notice  that  it  would  be  required  to
reduce  its  prison  population  in  February  2009,  when  the 
three-judge  court  gave  notice  of  its  tentative  ruling  after
trial.  The 2-year deadline, however, will not begin to run
until this Court issues its judgment.  When that happens,
the  State  will  have  already  had  over  two  years  to  begin 
complying  with  the  order  of  the  three-judge  court.    The 
State  has  used  the  time  productively.    At  oral  argument, 
the  State  indicated  it  had  reduced  its  prison  population
by  approximately  9,000  persons  since  the  decision  of  the
three-judge  court.    After  oral  argument,  the  State  filed  a 
supplemental  brief  indicating  that  it  had  begun  to  imple-
ment measures to shift “thousands” of additional prisoners
to county facilities.  Supp. Brief for Appellants at 1. 

Particularly in light of the State’s failure to contest the 
issue  at  trial,  the  three-judge  court  did  not  err  when
it  established  a  2-year  deadline  for  relief.    Plaintiffs  pro-
posed  a  2-year  deadline,  and  the  evidence  at  trial  was
intended  to  demonstrate  the  feasibility  of  a  2-year  dead-
line.  See Tr. 2979.  Notably, the State has not asked this 
Court to extend the 2-year deadline at this time.

The  three-judge  court,  however,  retains  the  authority,
and the responsibility, to make further amendments to the 
existing  order  or  any  modified  decree  it  may  enter  as 
warranted  by  the  exercise  of  its  sound  discretion.    “The 
power of a court of equity to modify a decree of injunctive