Skip to content
Sign up free
News

U.S. Supreme Court to hear case on overcrowded California prisons

U.S. Supreme Court to hear case on overcrowded California prisons

By Chris Hinyub

2-minute read

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will hear both sides of an issue which has been brewing between federal courts and California's executive for two years.

With a total of 33 adult prisons that are now over 180 percent capacity, California is engaging in cruel and unusual punishment by not providing adequate healthcare for its prison population; this, according to a decision by a special three-judge panel in 2008.

In January, the judges ordered the state to reduce its inmate population by roughly 45,000 (from its current population of just over 150,000) within two years.  “California’s prisons are bursting at the seams and are impossible to manage,” declared the lower court in its January 12 decision.  The state's current prison system is designed to accommodate exactly 84,156 inmates. This new mandate, even if successfully met, would still leave California prisons at 137.5 percent design capacity.

The state reluctantly submitted a plan which would use county jails and non-revocable parole policies to lessen the problem. However, with legal challenges of its own and a $19 billion state budget deficit, this plan is proving less than workable.

Though Governor Schwarzenegger admitted state prisons were extremely overcrowded, he and his corrections Secretary Matthew Cate insist the situation is improving and the state is no longer in violation of the Constitution.  Relying on the language of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the governor doesn't think U.S. District Judges Lawrence K. Karlton (Sacramento), Thelton E. Henderson (San Francisco), and 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles have the authority to mandate a reduction in the prison population of his state.

A group of Republican lawmakers are backing the governor in appealing the order (which has been stayed). The state feels it can reduce its population in a slower, more prudent way, fearing the judges' order will endanger public safety.  The administration argued in court papers that the lower court “entered an unprecedented order that intrudes on the state’s authority over its prison system and constrains the state’s ability to respond to problems within its prison system and more broadly throughout California.”  Schwarzenegger spokeswoman, Rachel Arrezola, stated last Monday, "We continue to believe federal judges do not have the authority to order the early release of prisoners in our state."

The tribunal in this case was formed to adjudicate the merits of two class action law suits brought on behalf of physically and mentally ill prisoners. The panel maintains that it can abrogate a violation of constitutional law by whatever means it deems necessary.

When the high court is briefed and hears oral arguments sometime this Fall, it will be the their first look at the constitutionality of a lower court order of this kind.

Tags: News

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Nonpartisan Issues. Diverse Perspectives.

Check your inbox and click the link to confirm.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Set the canonical URL of your copy to the original IVN article (the HTML we give you includes the tag).
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

U.S. Supreme Court to hear case on overcrowded California prisons

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us