## Facts

- Inmates at the Pendleton Correctional Facility brought a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging prison conditions.
- The federal district court found violations of state and federal law, including the Eighth Amendment, and entered an injunction ordering remedial measures.
- Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which set substantive limits on “prospective relief” in prison-conditions cases and created a mechanism for terminating noncompliant relief.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(2), defendants could seek “immediate termination” of prospective relief not meeting the PLRA’s standards.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(2), filing a termination motion triggers an “automatic stay” of the prospective relief starting 30 days after filing (extendable up to 90 days for good cause) until the court rules.
- Indiana prison officials moved to terminate the existing remedial order; the inmates sought to enjoin operation of the automatic stay, asserting due process and separation-of-powers violations.
- The district court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the automatic stay; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding the statute barred equitable injunctions but was unconstitutional under separation-of-powers principles.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3626(e)(2) makes the PLRA automatic stay mandatory, thereby precluding courts from using equitable powers to enjoin the stay once triggered.
2. Whether the PLRA’s automatic stay mechanism violates separation-of-powers principles by improperly interfering with the judicial function.
3. Whether the automatic stay violates due process by suspending remedial relief before adjudication of the termination motion.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that § 3626(e)(2) mandates an automatic stay once a termination motion is filed, leaving no equitable discretion to enjoin the stay.
- The Court held that the automatic stay provision does not violate separation of powers because it changes the law governing ongoing prospective relief and regulates the timing of judicial action without reopening final judgments or dictating case outcomes.
- The Court rejected the due process challenge, reasoning that the stay affects the remedy temporarily and inmates retain an opportunity to be heard on the termination motion.

## Legal Principles

- When Congress clearly states that a filing “shall operate as a stay,” courts must treat the stay as mandatory and may not use equitable authority to prevent its operation.
- Congress may alter the legal standards governing ongoing institutional-reform injunctions and require prompt judicial application of those standards without violating separation of powers, so long as courts retain the adjudicatory role of applying the new law.
- Separation-of-powers limits are not breached by statutes that affect pending cases through changes in applicable law and procedural timing, provided they do not reopen final judgments or prescribe a rule of decision that compels a particular result.
- A temporary, time-limited stay of prospective relief pending resolution of a termination motion does not, by itself, deny procedural due process where parties can be heard and the court remains responsible for deciding whether relief should continue.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the PLRA’s mandatory automatic stay triggered by a motion to terminate prison-conditions prospective relief, concluding that Congress may impose a time-limited stay and revised standards for ongoing injunctions without impermissibly intruding on judicial power or denying due process.


Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (2000)