U.S. Supreme Court Orders Release Of Over 30,000 Prisoners In California

The Supreme Court issued another wrong and unconstitutional ruling in Brown v. Plata earlier today. 5 out of 9 Justices, with Justice Anthony Kennedy unsurprisingly joined by the four liberal Justices, voted to force the release tens of thousands of felons in California under the guise of it being "required by the Constitution":

The Supreme Court on Monday endorsed a court order requiring California to cut its prison population by tens of thousands of inmates to improve health care for those who remain behind bars.

The court said in a 5-4 decision that the reduction is “required by the Constitution” to correct longstanding violations of inmates’ rights. The order mandates a prison population of no more than 110,000 inmates, still far above the system’s designed capacity.

There are more than 142,000 inmates in the state’s 33 adult prisons, meaning roughly 32,000 inmates will need to be transferred to other jurisdictions or released.

Justice Antonin Scalia vigorously dissented writing (with Justice Clarence Thomas joining in his opinion):

Today the Court affirms what is perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our Nation’s history: an order requiring California to release the staggering number of 46,000 convicted criminals.

There comes before us, now and then, a case whose proper outcome is so clearly indicated by tradition and common sense, that its decision ought to shape the law, rather than vice versa. One would think that, before allowing the decree of a federal district court to release 46,000 convicted felons, this Court would bend every effort to read the law in such a way as to avoid that outrageous result. Today, quite to the contrary, the Court disregards stringently drawn provisions of the governing statute, and traditional constitutional limitations upon the power of a federal judge, in order to uphold the absurd.

The proceedings that led to this result were a judicial travesty. I dissent because the institutional reform the District Court has undertaken violates the terms of the governing statute, ignores bedrock limitations on the power of Article III judges, and takes federal courts wildly beyond their institutional capacity.

To read Scalia's full dissenting opinion visit http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-1233.ZD.html.

Justice Alito also dissented (with Chief Justice John Roberts joining this opinion):

The Constitution does not give federal judges the authority to run state penal systems. Decisions regarding state prisons have profound public safety and financial implications, and the States are generally free to make these decisions as they choose... In this case, a three-judge court exceeded its authority under the Constitution.. The court ordered a radical reduction in the California prison population without finding that the current population level violates the Constitution... The prisoner release ordered in this case is unprecedented...[and] improvident... In largely sustaining the decision below, the majority is gambling with the safety of the people of California. Before putting public safety at risk, every reasonable precaution should be taken. The decision below should be reversed, and the case should be remanded for this to be done. I fear that today’s decision, like prior prisoner release orders, will lead to a grim roster of victims. I hope that I am wrong. In a few years, we will see.

To read Alito's full dissent visit http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-1233.ZD1.html. Tweet