Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 80

6 

BROWN v. PLATA 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

The majority approves the three-judge court’s refusal to 
receive fresh evidence based largely on the need for “[o]r-
derly  trial  management.”    Ante,  at  26.  The  majority  rea-
sons that the three-judge court had closed the book on the 
question  of  constitutional  violations  and  had  turned  to 
the question of remedy.  Ibid.  As noted, however, the ex- 
tent of any continuing constitutional violations was highly
relevant to the question of remedy.

The  majority  also  countenances  the  three-judge  court’s
reliance  on  dated  findings.    The  majority  notes  that  the
lower court considered recent reports by the Special Mas-
ter and Receiver, ante, at 18–19, but the majority provides
no  persuasive  justification  for  the  lower  court’s  refusal  to 
receive  hard,  up-to-date  evidence  about  any  continuing 
violations.    With  the  safety  of  the  people  of  California  in 
the balance, the record on this issue should not have been 
closed. 

The  majority  repeats  the  lower  court’s  error  of  reciting
statistics  that  are  clearly  out  of  date.    The  Court  notes 
the lower court’s finding that as of 2005 “an inmate in one
of  California’s  prisons  needlessly  dies  every  six  to  seven 
days.”  See  ante,  at  9.  Yet  by  the  date  of  the  trial  before 
the  three-judge  court,  the  death  rate  had  been  trending
downward  for  10  quarters,  App.  2257,  and  the  number  of 
likely preventable deaths fell from 18 in 2006 to 3 in 2007, 
a  decline  of  83  percent.5    Between  2001  and  2007,  the 
—————— 

decree, an accurate assessment of conditions as of that date was essen-
tial in order to ensure that the relief did not sweep more broadly than 
necessary.   

5 2008  Death  Reviews  22.    The  majority  elides  the  improvement  by
combining  likely  preventable  deaths  with  those  that  were  “possibly 
preventable,” ante, at 7, n. 4, that is, cases in which “[i]n the judgment
of the reviewer,” 2008 Death Reviews 3, “it’s fifty-fifty that better care
would have possibly prevented the death,” App. 2277; id., at 2256.  As 
the majority acknowledges, even this class of cases is now dramatically 
diminished, and the three-judge court must take the current conditions
into account when revising its remedy going forward.  Ante, at 7, n. 4.