Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 52.0

46 

BROWN v. PLATA 

Opinion of the Court 

relief  is  long-established,  broad,  and  flexible.”  New  York 
State Assn. for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 706 F. 2d 
956,  967  (CA2  1983)  (Friendly,  J.).  A  court  that  invokes 
equity’s  power  to  remedy  a  constitutional  violation  by  an
injunction  mandating  systemic  changes  to  an  institution
has  the  continuing  duty  and  responsibility  to  assess  the
efficacy  and  consequences  of  its  order.    Id.,  at  969–971. 
Experience  may  teach  the  necessity  for  modification  or 
amendment  of  an  earlier  decree.    To  that  end,  the  three-
judge court must remain open to a showing or demonstra-
tion  by  either  party  that  the  injunction  should  be  altered 
to  ensure  that  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  parties  are 
given all due and necessary protection. 

Proper  respect  for  the  State  and  for  its  governmental
processes  require  that  the  three-judge  court  exercise  its 
jurisdiction  to  accord  the  State  considerable  latitude  to
find mechanisms and make plans to correct the violations
in  a  prompt  and  effective  way  consistent  with  public
safety.  In order to “give substantial weight to any adverse 
impact  on  public  safety,”  18  U. S. C.  §3626(a)(1)(A),  the
three-judge  court  must  give  due  deference  to  informed 
opinions  as  to  what  public  safety  requires,  including  the
considered  determinations  of  state  officials  regarding
the time in which a reduction in the prison population can
be achieved consistent with public safety.  An extension of 
time  may  allow  the  State  to  consider  changing  political, 
economic, and other circumstances and to take advantage 
of  opportunities  for  more  effective  remedies  that  arise  as
the  Special  Master,  the  Receiver,  the  prison  system,  and 
the  three-judge  court  itself  evaluate  the  progress  being 
made to correct unconstitutional conditions.  At the same 
time,  both  the  three-judge  court  and  state  officials  must
bear in mind the need for a timely and efficacious remedy
for the ongoing violation of prisoners’ constitutional rights. 
The  State  may  wish  to  move  for  modification  of  the
three-judge  court’s  order  to  extend  the  deadline  for  the