Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 6

6 

BROWN v. PLATA 

Syllabus 

ments  are  made  with  the  objective  of  releasing  the  fewest  possible
prisoners consistent with an efficacious remedy.  Pp. 42–44.

(c) The three-judge court did not err in providing a 2-year dead-
line  for  relief,  especially  in  light  of  the  State’s  failure  to  contest  the
issue at trial.  The State has not asked this Court to extend the dead-
line,  but  the  three-judge  court  has  the  authority,  and  responsibility,
to amend its order as warranted by the exercise of sound discretion. 
Proper  respect  for  the  State  and  for  its  governmental  processes  re-
quire that court to exercise its jurisdiction to accord the State consid-
erable  latitude  to  find  mechanisms  and  make  plans  that  will
promptly and effectively correct the violations consistent with public
safety.  The court may, e.g., grant a motion to extend the deadline if 
the  State  meets  appropriate  preconditions  designed  to  ensure  that 
the  plan  will  be  implemented  without  undue  delay.    Such  observa-
tions reflect the fact that the existing order, like all ongoing equitable
relief, must remain open to appropriate modification, and are not in-
tended  to  cast  doubt  on  the  validity  of  the  order’s  basic  premise. 
Pp. 44–48. 

Affirmed. 

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, 
BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.  SCALIA, J., filed a dissent-
ing  opinion,  in  which  THOMAS, J.,  joined.    ALITO, J.,  filed  a  dissenting 
opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined.