Social Reform In The Hollow Hope

In The Hollow Hope, Gerald Rosenberg outlines the conditions under which the Supreme Court can accomplish significant social reform. It is through a Conditional Court model that the Supreme Court can overcome powerful constraints of limited rights, a lack of independence, and a shortage in implementation tools and move towards achieving change. In Brown v. Plata, the Supreme Court accomplishes significant social reform consistent with Rosenberg’s Conditional Court model based on an analysis of California’s prison population over time, a measure of the Court’s goal in this case. In Brown v. Plata, the goals of the advocates and the majority of the Supreme Court were to remedy constitutional violations in California state prisons by reducing overcrowding. In his oral argument, Donald Specter, representing Plata et al., described how overcrowding was the root of inadequate medical and mental health care services for inmates. Specter explained how prison staff could not effectively administer services when physical space was unavailable and the caseload was
In 2011, the Court in Brown v. Plata gave California two years to reduce overcrowding to a 137.5% capacity, the equivalent to an 113,722 inmate maximum. Though California reduced its prison population it did not meet the deadline and was issued an extension in 2013. In January of 2015, California officially met the standard set by the court when prisons were at a 137.2% capacity. A weekly population report conducted by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in April of 2017 displays how California continues to decrease its prison population at a current capacity of 131.8 %. Thus, data measuring California’s prison population since 2011 suggest that the Court achieved an impact because overcrowding was