Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 76.0

2 

BROWN v. PLATA 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

without  finding  that  the  current  population  level  violates 
the Constitution. 

Two cases were before the three-judge court, and neither
targeted the general problem of overcrowding.  Indeed, the 
plaintiffs  in  one  of  those  cases  readily  acknowledge  that 
the  current  population  level  is  not  itself  unconstitutional. 
Brief  for  Coleman  Appellees  56.    Both  of  the  cases  were 
brought  not  on  behalf  of  all  inmates  subjected  to  over-
crowding, but rather in the interests of much more limited 
classes of prisoners, namely, those needing mental health
treatment  and  those  with  other  serious  medical  needs. 
But these cases were used as a springboard to implement 
a  criminal  justice  program  far  different  from  that  chosen
by  the  state  legislature.  Instead  of  crafting  a  remedy  to 
attack  the  specific  constitutional  violations  that  were 
found—which related solely to prisoners in the two plain-
tiff  classes—the  lower  court  issued  a  decree  that  will  at 
best  provide  only  modest  help  to those  prisoners  but  that 
is  very  likely  to  have  a  major  and  deleterious  effect  on 
public safety.

The  three-judge  court  ordered  the  premature  release  of 
approximately  46,000  criminals—the  equivalent  of  three 
Army divisions.

The approach taken by the three-judge court flies in the 
face of the PLRA.  Contrary to the PLRA, the court’s rem-
edy is not narrowly tailored to address proven and ongoing 
constitutional  violations.  And  the  three-judge  court  vio-
lated  the  PLRA’s  critical  command  that  any  court  con-
templating a prisoner release order must give “substantial 
weight  to  any  adverse  impact  on  public  safety.”    18 
U. S. C. §3626(a)(1)(A).  The three-judge court would have
us believe that the early release of 46,000 inmates will not 
imperil—and  will  actually  improve—public  safety.    Juris. 
Statement  App.,  O. T.  2009,  No.  09–416,  pp.  248a–249a 
(hereinafter  Juris.  App.).  Common  sense  and  experience
counsel greater caution.