Brown v. Plata
563 U. S. ____ (2011) (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a federal court may order a state to reduce its prison population as a remedy for an Eighth Amendment violation, but only as a last resort after finding by clear and convincing evidence that overcrowding is the primary cause of the violation and that no less intrusive remedy would be effective.
Facts:
- For over a decade, California's prisons operated at nearly 200% of their design capacity, holding approximately 156,000 inmates in facilities designed for under 80,000.
- The severe overcrowding resulted in inmates being housed in unconventional spaces like gymnasiums and dayrooms, with as many as 200 prisoners monitored by only two or three officers and up to 54 prisoners sharing a single toilet.
- Prisoners with serious mental illnesses faced extreme conditions, including being held for prolonged periods in telephone-booth-sized cages without toilets and waiting up to 12 months for necessary care, contributing to a suicide rate nearly 80% higher than the national average for prisons.
- Inmates with serious physical illnesses received grossly deficient care due to inadequate clinical space and staffing, leading to preventable deaths from conditions like cancer and heart problems after extreme delays in treatment.
- The state-appointed Corrections Independent Review Panel concluded the prisons were 'severely overcrowded, imperiling the safety of both correctional employees and inmates.'
- Overcrowding created unsanitary conditions that were 'breeding grounds for disease,' increased prison violence, and necessitated frequent lockdowns, all of which further impeded the delivery of medical and mental health care.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1990, a class of prisoners with serious mental illnesses filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Coleman v. Brown).
- In 2001, a class of prisoners with serious medical conditions filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Plata v. Brown).
- In Coleman, the district court found systemic constitutional violations in 1995 and appointed a Special Master to oversee remedies.
- In Plata, the State conceded constitutional violations, and after it failed to comply with an injunction, the district court appointed a Receiver in 2005 to manage the prison medical system.
- The Special Master and Receiver both reported that extreme overcrowding was the primary barrier to remedying the constitutional violations.
- The plaintiffs in both cases moved to convene a special three-judge district court, as required by the PLRA for a prisoner release order.
- The three-judge court was convened, consolidated the cases for the purpose of the remedy, and, after a 14-day trial, ordered California to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of design capacity within two years.
- The State of California, as appellant, appealed this order directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal court order requiring a state to reduce its prison population to remedy a violation of prisoners' Eighth Amendment rights to adequate medical and mental health care exceed the court's authority under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) when overcrowding is found to be the primary cause of the violation and less intrusive remedies have failed?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. A federal court order to reduce a state's prison population is a permissible remedy under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) when clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that chronic overcrowding is the primary cause of an ongoing Eighth Amendment violation and that less intrusive remedies have proven insufficient over many years. The PLRA authorizes such relief as a last resort. In this case, the constitutional violations in California's prisons, specifically the failure to provide adequate medical and mental health care, were severe, well-documented, and had resulted in needless suffering and death. The three-judge court correctly found that overcrowding was the 'primary cause' of these violations, as it overwhelmed facilities, staff, and resources, making constitutionally adequate care impossible to deliver. After years of failed less-intrusive remedies, including the appointment of a Special Master and a Receiver, a population limit was the only remedy that could correct the ongoing constitutional violations. The order was narrowly tailored, affording the State flexibility in its implementation, and the court gave substantial weight to public safety, concluding that the population could be reduced without an adverse impact.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
Yes. The court's order exceeds judicial authority and is 'perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our Nation’s history.' The premise of a system-wide constitutional violation is flawed; only individual prisoners who are actually denied care have a cognizable claim, not every prisoner who faces a 'risk' of being denied care. This order is a 'structural injunction' that improperly turns judges into long-term administrators and policymakers, a role for which they are institutionally incompetent and which belongs to the executive and legislative branches. The court's 'factual findings' about public safety were not traditional findings of fact but were instead policy judgments disguised as such. The remedy is not narrowly tailored, as it orders the release of thousands of prisoners who are not part of the plaintiff classes and have suffered no constitutional injury themselves.
Dissenting - Justice Alito
Yes. The court's order is a perfect example of what the PLRA was enacted to prevent and exceeds the court's authority. The three-judge court improperly refused to consider up-to-date evidence of current prison conditions, relying instead on outdated findings. The court erred in holding that no remedy short of a massive prisoner release could fix the constitutional violations; many specific deficiencies like sanitation, equipment, and staffing could be addressed through more targeted, less intrusive means. The order is not narrowly tailored because it reduces the general prison population rather than focusing relief on the specific plaintiff classes of sick and mentally ill inmates. Finally, the court gave inadequate weight to the immense and foreseeable adverse impact on public safety that will result from ordering the premature release of approximately 46,000 criminals.
Analysis:
This decision powerfully affirms the authority of federal courts to enforce the Eighth Amendment within state prisons, even through highly intrusive remedies like population caps, when faced with chronic and severe constitutional violations. It establishes that while the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) creates stringent requirements, it does not render such remedies impossible, framing them as a necessary last resort. The case underscores the deep tension between federal judicial power to remedy constitutional wrongs and the principles of state sovereignty and separation of powers in managing correctional systems. The ruling puts pressure on states with overcrowded prisons to either invest significant funds in correctional infrastructure and healthcare or reform sentencing and parole laws to reduce their inmate populations.
Unlock the full brief for Brown v. Plata