—the decision by a three-judge panel, now awaiting decision on appeal to the Supreme Court (Schwarzenegger

Judge Ai en seemed prepared to do this, stating, “[P] laintiffs do not as this Court to pinpoint the 'best' emissions level; they as this Court to determine what emissions level would be sufficient to redress their injuries. That question can be answered without any consideration of competing [policy and economic] interests

While the appeal was pending, the Defendants proposed a specific plan to reduce the state's prisoner population

This calculus is complicated by the cross-cutting pressure that overcrowded prisons “perpetuate a criminogenic prison system that” threatens, rather than protects, public safety.

Inmates in California prisons sued the state alleging a violation of their 8th Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment due to overcrowding

The special monitor and receiver reported significant noncompliance with remedial orders and, in 2010, twenty years after the first of the two cases was filed, a three-judge panel ordered California to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent capacity, a reduction of some 46,000 people

See Kathleen Gray, Mic. House passes bill adopting 'presumptive parole,' DETROIT FREE PRESS (Oct. 1, 2015), http://www. freep. com/story/news/2015/10/01/mich-house-passes-bill-adopting-presumptive-parole/73155514/. 71.

The panel that issued the order stated that “the State' s long-standing failure to provide constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care to its prison inmates has necessi tated our actions

In a time when states already divert offenders into alternative courts to avoid costly incarceration and California is releasing prisoners under court order

Forexample, a three-judge panelmandatedpopulation reductions in theCalifornia prisons to alleviate overcrowding.