SCOTUS: CA Prison Overcrowding Violates The Eighth Amendment Ban On Cruel And Unusual Punishment

NYT: “Justices, 5-4, Tell California To Cut Prisoner Population.” From a May 23 New York Times article:

Conditions in California's overcrowded prisons are so bad that they violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday, ordering the state to reduce its prison population by more than 30,000 inmates.

[...]

Monday's ruling in the case, Brown v. Plata, No. 09-1233, affirmed an order by a special three-judge federal court requiring state officials to reduce the prison population to 110,000, which is 137.5 percent of the system's capacity. There have been more than 160,000 inmates in the system in recent years, and there are now more than 140,000. [The New York Times, 5/23/11]

LA Times: "[Justice Kennedy] Cited A Former Texas Prison Director Who Toured California Lockups And Described The Conditions As 'Appalling' [And] 'Inhumane.' " From a May 24 Los Angeles Times article:

In presenting the decision, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a Sacramento native, spoke from the bench about suicidal prisoners being held in “telephone booth-sized cages without toilets” and others, sick with cancer or in severe pain, who died before being seen by a doctor. As many as 200 prisoners may live in a gymnasium, and as many as 54 may share a single toilet, he said.

Kennedy, whose opinion was joined by his four liberal colleagues, said the state's prisons were built to hold 80,000 inmates, but were crowded with as many 156,000 a few years ago.

He cited a former Texas prison director who toured California lockups and described the conditions as “appalling,” “inhumane” and unlike any he had seen “in more than 35 years of prison work.” [Los Angeles Times, 5/24/11]

NYT: Justice Kennedy “Described A Prison System That Failed To Deliver Minimal Care To Prisoners ... And Produced 'Needless Suffering And Death.' ” From the May 23 New York Times article:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in a 5-to-4 decision that broke along ideological lines, described a prison system that failed to deliver minimal care to prisoners with serious medical and mental health problems and produced “needless suffering and death.”

Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed vigorous dissents. Justice Scalia called the order affirmed by the majority “perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history.” Justice Alito said “the majority is gambling with the safety of the people of California.”

The majority opinion included photographs of inmates crowded into open gymnasium-style rooms and what Justice Kennedy described as “telephone-booth-sized cages without toilets” used to house suicidal inmates. Suicide rates in the state's prisons, Justice Kennedy wrote, have been 80 percent higher than the average for inmates nationwide. A lower court in the case said it was “an uncontested fact” that “an inmate in one of California's prisons needlessly dies every six or seven days due to constitutional deficiencies.”

[...]

“A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society,” Justice Kennedy wrote on Monday. [The New York Times, 5/23/11]

AP: “A Second Judge In The [Lower Court] Case Has Blamed Crowding For Contributing To Poor Care For Mentally Ill Inmates, Leading Some To Kill Themselves.” From a May 23 Associated Press article:

A special panel of three judges based in different parts of California decided in 2009 to order the prison population reduction. Monday's order puts them in charge of how the state complies. The 2009 ruling grew out of lawsuits alleging unconstitutionally poor care for mentally and physically ill inmates. One case dates back 20 years.

The growth in the prison population in the nation's most populous state can be attributed in part to years of get-tough sentencing laws, including a three-strikes law that sends repeat offenders to prison for life. As of May 11, there were roughly 143,000 inmates in a 33 adult prison-system designed to hold 80,000.

At the peak of overcrowding in 2006, nearly 20,000 inmates were living in makeshift housing in gymnasiums and other common areas, often sleeping in bunks stacked three high. Prison doctors conducted examinations in shower stalls or in makeshift offices without running water, often in full view of other inmates.

One of the federal judges involved in the lower court ruling once blamed the prison system's poor medical care for causing the death of about one inmate every week due to neglect or medical malpractice.

The same judge in 2006 seized control of the prison health care system, putting it under the management of a federal receiver. A second judge in the case has blamed crowding for contributing to poor care for mentally ill inmates, leading some to kill themselves.

At the time, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a public safety emergency because of the crowding. He then began shipping inmates to private prisons in Arizona, Mississippi and Oklahoma. More than 10,000 California inmates are now housed in private prisons out of state. [AP, 5/23/11, emphasis added]

Fox Claims Ruling Means CA Inmates Will “Get Out Of Jail Free”

Carlson: “One State's Solution To [Prison] Overcrowding -- Set All The Criminals Free. Is That Really The Only Option?” The May 24 broadcast of Fox News' Fox & Friends featured several segments about the Supreme Court ruling. Co-host Gretchen Carlson teased an upcoming segment about the story by saying: “And some prison inmates landing a get out of jail free card -- literally. One state's solution to overcrowding -- set all the criminals free. Is that really the only option? At least 46,000 of them free?” Later in the broadcast, co-host Steve Doocy repeated this tease nearly verbatim. After Doocy asked if “set[ting] the criminals free” was “really the only option in California,” co-host Brian Kilmeade replied, “The Supreme Court said so.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/24/11]

Napolitano: “You're Gonna See A Lot More Lawsuits Like This From Groups Of Prisoners In Other States.” Later during the show, the co-hosts brought Fox Business host Andrew Napolitano on to discuss the ruling. Carlson began the interview by falsely claiming that the Supreme Court “just ordered the state of California to release nearly 50,000 inmates from their state prisons.” During the segment, Napolitano acknowledged that California prisons are overcrowded but claimed that this will lead to judges “find[ing] ways not to send [repeat offenders] to jail because there simply isn't room in those jails. ... You're gonna see a lot more lawsuits like this from groups of prisoners in other states.” Napolitano also claimed that the prisons were overcrowded by “46,000” inmates. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/24/11]

Carlson Suggests That Inmates In Overcrowded Prisons Are Upset Because “They Didn't Get A Snack In The Afternoon.” During the segment with Napolitano, Carlson suggested that the prison overcrowding case was brought “because [prisoners] didn't get a snack in the afternoon.” Napolitano responded, “I don't think it's that light, but I also think that this is the wrong decision.” [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/24/11]

Carlson Asks: “So If You Want To Commit A Crime, Move To California?” Later during the segment, Doocy quoted from Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in the ruling, saying, “Justice Scalia says ... 'Terrible things are sure to happen as a consequence of this outrageous order.' ” Napolitano agreed with Scalia, and later, Carlson said, “So if you want to commit a crime, move to California?” From the show:

DOOCY: Here's what Justice Scalia says. He says, quote, “Terrible things are sure to happen as a consequence of this outrageous order.”

NAPOLITANO: I think he's right.

CARLSON: What does he mean by that?

NAPOLITANO: He means that bad people will be set free and will feel that they can commit more crime and will have the perception that they're not going to go back to jail.

CARLSON: So if you want to commit a crime, move to California?

NAPOLITANO: Move to California. Well, I don't want to actually say that. But that's Justice Scalia's prediction. And there's a kernel of truth in that. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/24/11]

Ingraham: Supreme Court Decision “Is An Amazing Exercise In Judicial Activism.” Also during the May 24 broadcast of Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham appeared on the program to discuss the ruling. From the broadcast:

INGRAHAM: Gretchen, look, this decision is an amazing exercise in judicial activism. Here we have the Supreme Court of the United States turned in to this long-term prison administrator because they are now expanding this interpretation of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, not to get too wonky. They're expanding interpretation of that, and they've issued or OK'd this structural injunction. Now, that means basically over a long period of time, the courts are going to be actively monitoring how California's running its prison system. And is there overcrowding? Yeah, probably. Is it difficult for some prison inmates? Yeah. Also probably. But the role of the federal court is not to act as this administrator of policy administrator on complicated issues like this.

And Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent, which I have in my hot little hand, is a tour de force, and he basically says this is one of the most outrageous opinions that have been written on prison issues that he's ever seen on the court. And, it's a stunner.

KILMEADE: The two words he used were staggering and absurd. They do say, and it sounds bad, but you say it's besides the point -- 54 to a toilet, they got 200 who live in a gym. Either --

DOOCY: It's overcrowded.

KILMEADE: Yeah, either build more prisons --

INGRAHAM: Well, I say: How many of those are illegal aliens?

CARLSON: I was just going to ask that question.

INGRAHAM: I mean, how many of those are gonna be released? [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 5/24/11]

In Fact, CA State Officials Want To Shift Inmates “To County Jails And Other Facilities” -- Not Simply Set Them Free

LA Times: “State Officials Vowed To Comply [With The Ruling], Saying They Hoped To Do So Without Setting Any Criminals Free.” From a May 24 Los Angeles Times article:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that California must remove tens of thousands of inmates from its prison rolls in the next two years, and state officials vowed to comply, saying they hoped to do so without setting any criminals free.

Administration officials expressed confidence that their plan to shift low-level offenders to county jails and other facilities, already approved by lawmakers, would ease the persistent crowding that the high court said Monday had caused “needless suffering and death” and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

Gov. Jerry Brown's transfer plan “would solve quite a bit” of the overcrowding problem, though not as quickly as the court wants, said Matthew Cate, secretary of California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. “Our goal is to not release inmates at all.''

But the governor's plan would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, to be paid for with tax hikes that could prove politically impossible to implement. And at present, Brown's plan is the only one on the table.

The governor issued a muted statement calling for enactment of his program and promising, “I will take all steps necessary to protect public safety.” [LA Times, 5/24/11]

AP: “The Decision ... Doesn't Mean The Prison Gates Will Swing Open In An Uncontrolled Release.” From a May 24 AP article:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that California must drastically reduce its prison population to relieve severe overcrowding that has exposed inmates to increased violence, disease and death.

The decision, however, doesn't mean the prison gates will swing open in an uncontrolled release.

The high court's 5-4 decision calls on the state to cut the population to no more than 110,000 inmates. To get there, state officials have two years to either transfer some 33,000 inmates to other jails or release them. California has already been preparing for the ruling, driven as much by persistent multibillion-dollar budget deficits as by fears for the well-being of prison inmates and employees. The state has sent inmates to other states. It plans to transfer jurisdiction over others to counties, though the state doesn't have the money to do it.

[...]

The ruling gives California two weeks to submit a population-reduction plan and two years to comply. However, Justice Anthony Kennedy, a California native who wrote the majority opinion, said the state could ask a federal court for more time to reach the 110,000-inmate target, even as he chastised California for allowing unconstitutional conditions to persist for years.

“Our goal is to not release inmates at all,'' said Matthew Cate, the state corrections secretary. Shorter term inmates will leave prison before the Supreme Court's deadline expires, and newly sentenced lower-level offenders would go to local jails under the plan.

With that said, there are no plans at this time to release any of the inmates currently housed at the two Monterey County prisons, Salinas Valley State Prison and the Correctional Training Facility, said Oscar Hidalgo, spokesman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The eventual goal, Hidalgo said, is to reduce the inmate population at the state prisons through initiatives such as the realignment program.

But sending more prisoners to Monterey County Jail presents its own problems, with the jail badly in need of upgrades and already housing more inmates than it was designed for, said Monterey County Sheriff Scott Miller. Concerns over prison crowding and security grew over the weekend with a pair of riots that injured inmates, but no guards. [AP, 5/24/11]

And The Number Of Prisoners Affected Is About 32,000 -- Not 46,000

AP: “Scalia's Number [Of 46,000], Cited In Legal Filings, Comes From A Period In Which The Prison Population Was Even Higher.” A May 23 AP article noted that “roughly 32,000 inmates will need to be transferred to other jurisdictions or released” as a result of the ruling. The article noted that Scalia used an estimate of “46,000 convicted felons” based on a period “in which the prison population was even higher” than it is currently. From the article:

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 Anthony Kennedy, a California native, wrote the majority opinion, in which he included photos of severe overcrowding. The court's four Democratic appointees joined with Kennedy.

“The violations have persisted for years. They remain uncorrected,” Kennedy said. The lawsuit challenging the provision of mental health care was filed in 1990.

Justice Antonin Scalia said in dissent that the court order is “perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history.”

Scalia, reading his dissent aloud Monday, said it would require the release of “the staggering number of 46,000 convicted felons.”

Scalia's number, cited in legal filings, comes from a period in which the prison population was even higher. [AP, 5/23/11]

Experts Predict “We're Not Going To See A Lot Of Copycat Litigation”

NYT: "[E]ven Advocates For Prisoners' Rights Said Monday's Decision Was Unlikely To Have A Significant Impact Around The Nation." Contrary to Napolitano's claim that "[y]ou're gonna see a lot more lawsuits like this from groups of prisoners in other states," an ACLU director told The New York Times that it was unlikely that there would be “a lot of copycat litigation.” From the Times:

Prison release orders are rare and hard to obtain, and even advocates for prisoners' rights said Monday's decision was unlikely to have a significant impact around the nation.

“California is an extreme case by any measure,” said David C. Fathi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project, which submitted a brief urging the justices to uphold the lower court's order. “This case involves ongoing, undisputed and lethal constitutional violations. We're not going to see a lot of copycat litigation.” [The New York Times, 5/23/11]