The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and change frequently; always consult with a qualified professional regarding your specific situation. The author and publisher assume no liability for any actions taken based on this information.
Key Facts
- Federal level: U.S. Supreme Court case No. 09-1233 is captioned Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor of California, et al., Appellants v. Marciano Plata, et al., and shows a docketed date of April 14, 2010.
- Federal level: The docket for No. 09-1233 is shown as linked with application 09A849 and references related lower-court case numbers in California.
- Federal level: An entry dated Nov. 1, 2010 states that a “Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association” was filed and marked (Distributed).
- Federal level: The docket shows oral argument set for Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2010.
- Federal level: The docket reflects that the judgment was affirmed, with Justice Kennedy delivering the opinion and dissenting opinions listed.
- National overview: The National Archives transcription of the Eighth Amendment states that “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”.
The topic behind the ABA headline and the docket record
News coverage about prison overcrowding sometimes references an ABA filing in a Supreme Court case. This explainer focuses on what the official Supreme Court docket search results confirm for docket No. 09-1233, rather than reconstructing what any brief argued when the docket display does not provide the brief’s text.
- The topic behind the ABA headline and the docket record
- The Supreme Court docket connected to the prison overcrowding reference
- Linked procedure and related lower court references in the docket
- What the docket shows about the ABA amicus filing
- What the docket shows about timing for argument
- What the docket reflects about the outcome and opinion disposition
- Why docket text is different from brief and opinion content
- Eighth Amendment baseline for punishment limits
- Bottom line for readers tracking docket headlines and prison overcrowding
- Related legal information
- Sources
The Supreme Court docket connected to the prison overcrowding reference
The Supreme Court docket search results for No. 09-1233 identify the case caption and show the case as docketed on April 14, 2010 on the Court’s docket page (U.S. Supreme Court docket for 09-1233).
Linked procedure and related lower court references in the docket
On the same docket search page, the Court’s listing shows a linked application number (09A849) and includes references to related lower-court case numbers in California. Those labels help explain the procedural pathway, but they do not substitute for the underlying filings’ substantive arguments.
What the docket shows about the ABA amicus filing
One clearly evidenced docket marker is an entry dated Nov. 1, 2010 stating that a “Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association” was filed and marked (Distributed). A “distributed” amicus entry indicates a filing entered the Court record, without the docket display itself supplying the amicus brief’s specific urged positions.
What the docket shows about timing for argument
The docket search results also reflect scheduling information, including that oral argument was set for Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2010. This is docket-level process information, separate from any legal or remedial conclusions in the Court’s opinion.
What the docket reflects about the outcome and opinion disposition
The docket search results include disposition language showing the judgment was affirmed and indicate that Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion, with dissenting opinions also listed. Those features summarize the outcome at a record level; a reader seeking the rationale for any remedies would need the opinion text.
Why docket text is different from brief and opinion content
Headlines that mention “alternatives to incarceration” often draw from the content of a brief or an opinion. When only docket-level entries are available, the safest reader takeaway is narrower: the docket can confirm participation (for example, an ABA amicus filing), while it cannot by itself confirm the brief’s detailed arguments or the opinion’s remedial reasoning.
Eighth Amendment baseline for punishment limits
For constitutional context, the National Archives transcription of the Eighth Amendment states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” (National Archives Bill of Rights transcription). This text provides an accessible baseline for many legal discussions about limits on punishment.
Bottom line for readers tracking docket headlines and prison overcrowding
For Brown v. Plata docket No. 09-1233, the Supreme Court docket record supplies evidence-grounded facts such as the captioned parties, docketed date, linked application number, the Nov. 1, 2010 ABA amicus entry marked (Distributed), the argument setting, and the affirmance disposition. Connecting any “alternatives to incarceration” language to what was actually urged generally requires the amicus brief and the Court’s opinion text, not the docket label alone.
