Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 32

26 

BROWN v. PLATA 

Opinion of the Court 

1190.  The  court  also  excluded  evidence  not  pertinent  to
the issue whether a population limit is appropriate under 
the  PLRA,  including  evidence  relevant  solely  to  the  exis-
tence  of  an  ongoing  constitutional  violation.   The  court 
reasoned that its decision was limited to the issue of rem-
edy and that the merits of the constitutional violation had
already  been  determined.  The  three-judge  court  made
clear  that  all  such  evidence  would  be  considered  “[t]o  the 
extent  that  it  illuminates  questions  that  are  properly 
before the court.”  App. 2339. 

Both  rulings  were  within  the  sound  discretion  of  the 
three-judge court.  Orderly trial management may require 
discovery deadlines and a clean distinction between litiga-
tion  of  the  merits  and  the  remedy.  The  State  in  fact 
represented to the three-judge court that it would be “ap-
propriate”  to  cut  off  discovery  before  trial  because  “like 
plaintiffs,  we,  too,  are  really  gearing  up  and  going  into  a
pretrial  mode.”    Id.,  at  1683.    And  if  the  State  truly  be-
lieved there was no longer a violation, it could have argued 
to  the  Coleman  and  Plata  District  Courts  that  a  three-
judge  court  should  not  be  convened  because  the  District 
Courts’  prior  orders  had  not  “failed  to  remedy  the  dep-
rivation”  of  prisoners’  constitutional  rights.  18  U. S. C. 
§3626(a)(3)(A)(i); see also supra, at 16–17.  Once the three-
judge  court  was  convened,  that  court  was  not  required  to
reconsider  the  merits.  Its  role  was  solely  to  consider  the
propriety and necessity of a population limit. 

The State does not point to any significant evidence that 
it was unable to present and that would have changed the 
outcome  of  the  proceedings.    To  the  contrary,  the  record
and  opinion  make  clear  that  the  decision  of  the  three-
judge  court  was  based  on  current  evidence  pertaining  to
ongoing constitutional violations. 

3 
The  three-judge  court  acknowledged  that  the  violations