Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 50

44 

BROWN v. PLATA 

Opinion of the Court 

some  upward  adjustment  was  warranted  in  light  of  “the
caution and restraint required by the PLRA.”  Juris. App.
183a, 184a.  The three-judge court noted evidence support-
ing  a  higher  limit.  In  particular,  the  State’s  Corrections 
Independent  Review  Panel  had  found  that  145%  was  the 
maximum  “operable  capacity”  of  California’s  prisons,  id., 
at  181a–182a,  although  the  relevance  of  that  determina-
tion  was  undermined  by  the  fact  that  the  panel  had  not
considered  the  need  to  provide  constitutionally  adequate
medical  and  mental  health  care,  as  the  State  itself  con-
cedes.  Brief for Coleman Appellees 45.  After considering, 
but  discounting,  this  evidence,  the  three-judge  court  con-
cluded  that  the  evidence  supported  a  limit  lower  than
145%, but higher than 130%.  It therefore imposed a limit 
of 137.5%. 

This weighing of the evidence was not clearly erroneous.
The  adversary  system  afforded  the  court  an  opportunity
to  weigh  and  evaluate  evidence  presented  by  the  parties.
The plaintiffs’ evidentiary showing was intended to justify
a  limit  of  130%,  and  the  State  made  no  attempt  to  show
that  any  other  number  would  allow  for  a  remedy.    There 
are  also  no  scientific  tools  available  to  determine  the 
precise population reduction necessary to remedy a consti-
tutional violation of this sort.  The three-judge court made
the  most  precise  determination  it  could  in  light  of  the
record  before  it.  The  PLRA’s  narrow  tailoring  require-
ment  is  satisfied  so  long  as  these  equitable,  remedial 
judgments  are  made  with  the  objective  of  releasing  the 
fewest  possible  prisoners  consistent  with  an  efficacious 
remedy.  In  light  of  substantial  evidence  supporting  an 
even more drastic remedy, the three-judge court complied 
with the requirement of the PLRA in this case. 

The  three-judge  court  ordered  the  State  to  achieve  this 
reduction within two years.  At trial and closing argument 

B