40,000. That's an eye-catching number for SBM Blog, almost exactly the number of licensed attorneys in Michigan. A three-judge panel in a California federal district court came up with that number when it ruled that overcrowding in California's prisons, where a system designed to house 80,000 now holds over twice that number, is the main cause of substandard medical and mental health care that violates prisoners' Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The State of California appealed the ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case today. The order has been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. ScotusBlog has all the pertinent detail about the case, Schwarzenegger v. Plata.
Michigan's budget woes and prison woes parallel those of California, although on a smaller scale, and Michigan joined 17 other states in an amicus brief (PDF) urging the high court to overturn the order. The amicus brief challenges the district court's interpretation of the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act, governing how federal courts can get involved in the management of state prisons, and says that the order is a threat to public safety. Anthony S. Barkow, head of NYU Law School's Center on Criminal Law told the Wall Street Journal (subsc. req.d), "The way that California ends up dealing with this problem will be an example for other states with massive budget problems and overcrowded prisons to watch and learn from."
