Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 75

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

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 09–1233 
_________________ 

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., GOVERNOR OF CAL- 

IFORNIA, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. MARCIANO 

PLATA ET AL. 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT AND THE NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

[May 23, 2011] 

JUSTICE  ALITO,  with  whom  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE  joins,

dissenting. 

The  decree  in  this  case  is  a  perfect  example  of  what
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 110 Stat. 
1321–66, was enacted to prevent.

The  Constitution  does  not  give  federal  judges  the  au-
thority  to  run  state  penal  systems.  Decisions  regarding
state  prisons  have  profound  public  safety  and  financial 
implications,  and  the  States  are  generally  free  to  make
these  decisions  as  they  choose.    See  Turner  v.  Safley,  482 
U. S. 78, 85 (1987). 

The  Eighth  Amendment  imposes  an  important—but 
limited—restraint  on  state  authority  in  this  field.  The 
Eighth  Amendment  prohibits  prison  officials  from  de- 
priving inmates of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s
necessities.”  Rhodes  v.  Chapman,  452  U. S.  337,  347 
(1981).  Federal  courts  have  the  responsibility  to  ensure 
that  this  constitutional  standard  is  met,  but  undesirable 
prison  conditions  that  do  not  violate  the  Constitution  are
beyond the federal courts’ reach.

In  this  case,  a  three-judge  court  exceeded  its  authority
under the Constitution and the PLRA.  The court ordered 
a  radical  reduction  in  the  California  prison  population