Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 78.0

4 

BROWN v. PLATA 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

of  past  violations  will  not  do;  nor  is  it  sufficient  simply 
to  establish  that  some  violations  continue.  The  scope  of
permissible  relief  depends  on  the  scope  of  any  continuing
violations,  and  therefore  it  was  essential  for  the  three-
judge court to make a reliable determination of the extent
of  any  violations  as  of  the  time  its  release  order  was  is-
sued.  Particularly  in  light  of  the  radical  nature  of  its
chosen  remedy,  nothing  less  than  an  up-to-date  assess-
ment was tolerable. 

The  three-judge  court,  however,  relied  heavily  on  out-
dated  information  and  findings  and  refused  to  permit
California to introduce new evidence.  Despite evidence of
improvement,1 the three-judge court relied on old findings
made by the single-judge courts, see Juris. App. 76a–77a,
including a finding made 14 years earlier, see id., at 170a 
(citing  Coleman  v.  Wilson,  912  F. Supp.  1282,  1316,  1319 
(ED Cal. 1995)).  The three-judge court highlighted death 
statistics from 2005, see Juris. App. 9a, while ignoring the 
“significant and continuous decline since 2006,” California 
Prison Health Care Receivership Corp., K. Imai, Analysis 
of  Year  2008  Death  Reviews  31  (Dec.  2009)  (hereinafter 
2008 Death Reviews).  And the court dwelled on conditions 
at a facility that has since been replaced.  See Juris. App.
19a–20a, 24a, 89a–90a, 94a, 107a, 111a. 

Prohibiting  the  State  from  introducing  evidence  about 
conditions  as  of  the  date  when  the  prisoner  release  order 
was  under  consideration,  id.,  at  76a–78a,  and  n. 42,  the 
three-judge court explicitly stated that it would not “evalu-
ate the state’s continuing constitutional violations.”  Id., at 

—————— 

1 Before  requesting  the  appointment  of  a  three-judge  court,  the  Dis-
trict  Court  in  Coleman  recognized  “commendable  progress”  in  the 
State’s effort to provide adequate mental health care, Juris. App. 294a, 
and  the  District  Court  in  Plata  acknowledged  that  “the  Receiver  has 
made much progress since his appointment,” id., at 280a.  The report of 
the Special Master to which the Court refers, ante, at 18–19, identifies 
a “generally positive trend.”  App. 803.