WASHINGTON — California’s bid to block a court order that would require the state to release or transfer more than 40,000 prison inmates ran into sharp and skeptical questioning Tuesday at the Supreme Court.
A slim majority of the justices sided with advocates who said the state has not provided humane care for its sick and mentally ill prisoners.
And despite decades of lawsuits and promises from the governor, the justices said the state has failed to reduce the severe overcrowding that has made the problem much worse.
During a heated argument on Tuesday, they sounded ready to approve a stiff ruling that would require the state to significantly reduce its prison population, though by how much and how quickly was not clear.
But the decision will divide the court, and some justices said they feared a mass release of prisoners will lead to a spike in crime.
“If I were a citizen of California, I would be concerned about the release of 40,000 prisoners,” said Justice Samuel Alito, noting that the forced release of prisoners elsewhere had led to an increase in rapes, robberies and assaults.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted the state had repeatedly promised to make changes but failed to do so.
Justice Stephen Breyer said the state had admitted it violated the Constitution by not providing decent care for its inmates. Photos from California’s prisons “are pretty horrendous,” he said.
When the state’s attorney argued the prisons are not as bad as the critics said, Justice Elena Kagan said the judges who heard the evidence had disagreed. “You are asking us to re-find the facts,” she said. “These judges have been involved in these cases since the beginning.”
As usual, Justice Anthony Kennedy is thought to hold the deciding vote on the closely divided court. As a Californian who hails from Sacramento, he has a special interest in the state’s prisons. And he too said he thought the judges of a special three-judge court were right to order a remedy to the overcrowding.
