Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 71

Cite as:  563 U. S. ____ (2011) 

13 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

prison injunctions.  See 18 U. S. C. §3626(b).

I  suspect,  however,  that  this  passage  is  a  warning  shot 
across the bow, telling the District Court that it had better 
modify the injunction if the State requests what we invite 
it to request.  Such a warning, if successful, would achieve
the benefit of a marginal reduction in the inevitable mur-
ders, robberies, and rapes to be committed by the released
inmates.  But  it  would  achieve  that  at  the  expense  of  in-
tellectual  bankruptcy,  as  the  Court’s  “warning”  is  en- 
tirely  alien  to  ordinary  principles  of  appellate  review  of 
injunctions.  When  a  party  moves  for  modification  of 
an injunction, the district court is entitled to rule on that
motion  first,  subject  to  review  for  abuse  of  discretion  if  it 
declines  to  modify  the  order.    Horne  v.  Flores,  557  U. S. 
___, ___, ___ (2009) (slip op., at 10, 20).  Moreover, when a 
district  court  enters  a  new  decree  with  new  benchmarks, 
the  selection  of  those  benchmarks  is  also  reviewed  under 
a  deferential,  abuse-of-discretion  standard  of  review—a 
point the Court appears to recognize.  Ante, at 45.  Appel-
late  courts  are  not  supposed  to  “affirm”  injunctions  while
preemptively noting that the State “may” request, and the
District Court “may” grant, a request to extend the State’s
deadline to release prisoners by three years based on some
suggestions  on  what  appropriate  preconditions  for  such  a 
modification “may” include. 

Of  course  what  is  really  happening  here  is  that  the
Court,  overcome  by  common  sense,  disapproves  of  the 
results  reached  by  the  District  Court,  but  cannot  remedy
them  (it  thinks)  by  applying  ordinary  standards  of  appel-
late review.  It has therefore selected a solution unknown 
in our legal system:  A deliberately ambiguous set of sug-
gestions  on  how  to  modify  the  injunction,  just  deferential 
enough  so  that  it  can  say  with  a  straight  face  that  it  is
“affirming,” just stern enough to put the District Court on
notice  that  it  will  likely  get  reversed  if  it  does  not  follow 
them.  In  doing  this,  the  Court  has  aggrandized  itself,