Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 65.0

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

7 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

pernicious  aspects:  that  they  force  judges  to  engage  in  a
form  of  factfinding-as-policymaking  that  is  outside  the 
traditional judicial role.  The factfinding judges tradition-
ally  engage  in  involves  the  determination  of  past  or  pre-
sent  facts  based  (except  for  a  limited  set  of  materials  of
which  courts  may  take  “judicial  notice”)  exclusively  upon 
a  closed  trial  record.  That  is  one  reason  why  a  district
judge’s  factual  findings  are  entitled  to clear-error  review: 
because having viewed the trial first hand he is in a better 
position to evaluate the evidence than a judge reviewing a
cold  record.  In  a  very  limited  category  of  cases,  judges 
have  also  traditionally  been  called  upon  to  make  some 
predictive  judgments:  which  custody  will  best  serve  the
interests of the child, for example, or whether a particular
one-shot  injunction  will  remedy  the  plaintiff’s  grievance.
When  a  judge  manages  a  structural  injunction,  however,
he will inevitably be required to make very broad empiri-
cal predictions necessarily based in large part upon policy 
views—the  sort  of  predictions  regularly  made  by  legis-
lators  and  executive  officials,  but  inappropriate  for  the
Third Branch. 

This  feature  of  structural  injunctions  is  superbly  illus-
trated  by  the  District  Court’s  proceeding  concerning  the 
decrowding  order’s  effect  on  public  safety.  The  PLRA 
requires  that,  before  granting  “[p]rospective  relief  in  [a]
civil action with respect to prison conditions,” a court must
“give  substantial  weight  to  any  adverse  impact  on  public 
safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused 
by  the  relief.”    18  U. S. C.  §3626(a)(1)(A).    Here,  the  Dis-
trict  Court  discharged  that  requirement  by  making  the
“factual finding” that “the state has available methods by
which  it  could  readily  reduce  the  prison  population  to 
137.5% design capacity or less without an adverse impact 
on  public  safety  or  the  operation  of  the  criminal  justice
system.”  Juris. Statement App., O. T. 2009, No. 09-416, p. 
253a.  It found the evidence “clear” that prison overcrowd-