|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|09-1233||E.D. Cal.||Nov 30, 2010||May 23, 2011||5-4||Kennedy||OT 2010|
Disclosure: Akin Gump represents California State Republican Legislator Intervenors, et al. in this case.
Holding: 1)The court below did not err in concluding that overcrowding in California prisons was the primary cause of the continuing violations of prisoners constitutional rights to adequate health care. 2) The evidence supported the conclusion of the three-judge panel that a population limit was necessary to remedy the overcrowding problem. 3) The relief ordered by the three-judge court the population limit was narrowly drawn, extended no further than necessary to correct the violation, and was the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation.
Plain English Holding: A federal court lawfully ordered California to reduce its prison population to remedy long-standing constitutional violations arising from prison overpopulation.
Judgment: United States District Courts for the Eastern District and the Northern District of California affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on May 23, 2011. Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Alito also wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by the Chief Justice.