Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 48

42 

BROWN v. PLATA 

Opinion of the Court 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U. S. 1, 15 (1971)).

Nevertheless,  the  PLRA  requires  a  court  to  adopt  a 
remedy  that  is  “narrowly  tailored”  to  the  constitutional 
violation  and  that  gives  “substantial  weight”  to  public
safety.  18 U. S. C. §3626(a).  When a court is imposing a 
population  limit,  this  means  the  court  must  set  the  limit
at  the  highest  population  consistent  with  an  efficacious 
remedy.  The court must also order the population reduc-
tion  achieved  in  the  shortest  period  of  time  reasonably 
consistent with public safety. 

A 

The  three-judge  court  concluded  that  the  population  of 
California’s  prisons  should  be  capped  at  137.5%  of  design
capacity.  This  conclusion  is  supported  by  the  record.
Indeed, some evidence supported a limit as low as 100% of 
design  capacity.    The  chief  deputy  secretary  of  Correc-
tional  Healthcare  Services  for  the  California  prisons  tes-
tified  that  California’s  prisons  “ ‘were  not  designed  and 
made no provision for any expansion of medical care space 
beyond  the  initial  100%  of  capacity.’ ”    Juris.  App.  176a.
Other  evidence  supported  a  limit  as  low  as  130%.    The 
head  of  the  State’s  Facilities  Strike  Team  recommended 
reducing  the  population  to  130%  of  design  capacity  as  a
long-term goal.  Id., at 179a–180a.  A former head of cor-
rectional systems in Washington State, Maine, and Penn-
sylvania  testified  that  a  130%  limit  would  “ ‘give  prison 
officials  and  staff  the  ability  to  provide  the  necessary 
programs and services for California’s prisoners.’ ”  Id., at 
180a.  A  former  executive  director  of  the  Texas  prisons
testified  that  a  limit  of  130%  was  “ ‘realistic  and  appro-
priate’ ” and would “ ‘ensure that [California’s] prisons are 
safe  and  provide  legally  required  services.’ ”    Ibid.  And  a 
former  acting  secretary  of  the  California  prisons  agreed
with a 130% limit with the caveat that a 130% limit might 
prove inadequate in some older facilities.  Ibid.