Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

14 

BROWN v. PLATA 

Opinion of the Court 

capacity  of  its  prisons  or  by  transferring  prisoners  to
county  facilities  or  facilities  in other  States.    Because  the 
order  limits  the  prison  population  as  a  percentage  of  de-
sign capacity, it nonetheless has the “effect of reducing or
limiting the prison population.”  Ibid. 

Under the PLRA, only a three-judge court may enter an
order limiting a prison population.  §3626(a)(3)(B).  Before 
a three-judge court may be convened, a district court first
must  have  entered  an  order  for  less  intrusive  relief  that 
failed  to  remedy  the  constitutional  violation  and  must 
have  given  the  defendant  a  reasonable  time  to  comply
with  its  prior  orders.    §3626(a)(3)(A).  The  party  request-
ing a three-judge court must then submit “materials suffi-
cient to demonstrate that [these requirements] have been
met.”  §3626(a)(3)(C).  If  the  district  court  concludes  that 
the  materials  are,  in  fact,  sufficient,  a  three-judge  court
may  be  convened.  Ibid.;  see  also  28  U. S. C.  §2284(b)(1) 
(stating  that  a  three-judge  court  may  not  be  convened  if
the  district  court  “determines  that  three  judges  are  not 
required”);  17A  C.  Wright,  A.  Miller,  E.  Cooper,  &  V. 
Amar, Federal Practice and Procedure §4235 (3d ed. 2007). 
The  three-judge  court  must  then  find  by  clear  and  con-
vincing  evidence  that  “crowding  is  the  primary  cause  of 
the  violation  of  a  Federal  right”  and  that  “no  other  relief 
will remedy the violation of the Federal right.”  18 U. S. C. 
§3626(a)(3)(E).  As  with  any  award  of  prospective  relief 
under  the  PLRA,  the  relief  “shall  extend  no  further  than 
necessary  to  correct  the  violation  of  the  Federal  right  of 
a  particular  plaintiff  or  plaintiffs.”    §3626(a)(1)(A).  The 
three-judge  court  must  therefore  find  that  the  relief  is 
“narrowly  drawn,  extends  no  further  than  necessary  . . .  ,
and  is  the  least  intrusive  means  necessary  to  correct  the
violation  of  the  Federal  right.”  Ibid.  In  making  this  de-
termination,  the  three-judge  court  must  give  “substantial
weight  to  any  adverse  impact  on  public  safety  or  the  op-
eration  of  a  criminal  justice  system  caused  by  the  relief.”