Adithya Sambamurthy/The Bay Citizen

Barbed wire at San Quentin State Prison, seen on Wednesday, May 12, 2011

Updated May 23, 2011 at 4:51 p.m.

A divided U.S. Supreme Court Monday ordered California to release of tens of thousands of state prison inmates, saying overcrowding in the state prison's had resulted in "needless suffering and death."

"Living conditions are 'toxic,' and a lack of treatment space impedes efforts to identify inmate medical or mental health needs and provide even rudimentary care," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote on behalf of the majority in a 5-to-4 decision.

"It's really gratifying," said Donald Specter, executive director of the Prison Law Office in Berkeley, which initiated the case 20 years ago.

Specter praised the court for its "thoughtful and wise decision on how to solve a very intractable problem that’s gone on for many, many years."

The state's powerful prison guards' union, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, also cheered the ruling. "Something needs to be done, we’re bursting at the seams," said Chuck Alexander, the union's executive vice president.

Prison overcrowding and the lack of adequate medical care for inmates are also creating unsafe conditions for guards, said Alexander.

"I’m the officer that deals with the inmate that has an impacted wisdom tooth. If I can’t get his tooth taken care of, then he’s going to hit me in the head," he added.

Specter, of the Prison Law Office, said he doubted the Supreme Court ruling would spur a massive release of prison inmates. He praised Gov. Jerry Brown's prison "realignment" proposal, which would shift thousands of state prison inmates to county jails, while overhauling parole and probation policies with an eye on decreasing recidivism.

The main difference, Specter said, is that Brown's realignment plan would reduce the state prison population to court-mandated levels over the course of five years. 

The Supreme Court is only giving Brown only two.

A panel of three federal judges has the power to extend that timeline, but in order to get more time, the state would have to show that it is actively relieving overcrowding, according to Brown’s executive secretary, Jim Humes.

“They're going to want to see that the state is making substantial progress,” Humes said during a conference call with reporters Monday afternoon.

In a statement reacting to the ruling, Brown said the main challenge would be to "secure full and constitutionally guaranteed funding to put into effect all the realignment provisions."

His revised budget, released last week, anticipated Monday's ruling and warned that without tax extensions, the state would be forced to cut public safety programs to comply with the court order. California "could no longer afford the supervision of non‐serious, non‐violent parolees. Nor could it afford to have these parolees incarcerated for violations unless they committed a new crime," the budget message said.

State corrections chief Matthew Cate told reporters Monday afternoon, “Our goal is to not release inmates at all,” but he declined to promise that would be the case. “I don't think we can guarantee anything at this point," he said.

Kennedy was joined in the majority by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

In a strongly written dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia doubted that that California's prison population could be reduced without endangering public safety.

His opinion, which is also signed by Justice Clarence Thomas, criticized the majority for affirming "the most radical injunction issued by a court in our Nation’s history."

"Terrible things are sure to happen," Scalia wrote, writing that the inmates released "will undoubtedly be fine physical specimens who have developed intimidating muscles pumping iron in the prison gym."

Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito also dissented on narrower, legal grounds.

Evan Wagstaff contributed reporting.