The Jennings blog has moved!
As of October 1, 2011 the Jennings Project blog has moved and joined forces with Constitution Daily, the Center’s daily digest of smart conversation on the Constitution. All new posts will be published there, so be sure to subscribe and follow Constitution Daily on Twitter. If you are interested in submitting a post to Constitution Daily, please email Stefan Frank at JenningsProject@constitutioncenter.org.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Of Prisons and Safety, Courts and Legislatures, and the Meaning of “Cruel and Inhuman”
The court’s remedy was to order California to reduce prison population to 167 percent of design capacity within six months, 155 percent by one year, and 137.5 percent within two years. But California has appealed, concerned that the early release of thousands of prisoners will put local communities in danger. While the reduction of the prison population will save the state money, there is no assurance in a time of tight budget woes that local communities will want to use that money for security services and methods aimed at easing inmates back into society.
The Supreme Court hearing is unusual in that the state did an end-run around the Ninth Circuit court, to which district court decisions are usually appealed, and the attorneys for the prisoners, in what is a class action suit, intend to raise that jurisdictional issue when they appear before the justices.
But for the state of California, which is being represented by Carter Phillips, a DC appellate attorney who will argue the annual moot court at the 2011 Peter Jennings Project, there is an issue more fundamental than either of the above and it is one in need of immediate attention: can a federal court order a remedy so draconian as this one without in effect acting like a legislature itself?
That issue has history. Back in 1996, concerned about the flood of lawsuits brought by inmates, Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act. A major concern was that courts were getting down into the weeds over the day-to-day operations of prisons, issuing broad rulings intended to remedy harsh conditions without, many argued, realistic understandings of how those rulings could be effectively enforced. The result was legislation that among other things, prevented courts from issuing prospective relief unless the relief is “narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the federal right.” California officials believe they can handle the problems in their courts without resorting to the remedy the court demands. They believe they can release some non-violent offenders, send some prisoners out of state to other facilities and otherwise manage the problem without having to meet the percentage requirements that the court demanded. In other words, they believe that the court, in issuing its ruling, did not heed the strict standards legislated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Whatever the Supreme Court does, there will be a lot of eyes watching. With the nation’s prison population now well over two million, California is not the only state facing the critical dilemma now being addressed by the justices: in a system bursting at the seams, what method is there to humanely house prisoners? And which branch of government gets to decide what that method is?