The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case about whether federal courts can force New Orleans to build a controversial new jail facility for inmates with mental health needs, the last development in a years-long legal saga centering on the stalled project.

Three of the court's justices would have granted certiorari — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — missing by one vote the required quorum to take up the case.

In an opinion dissenting from the certiorari denial, Justice Alito said he would use judicial power to slash a 2019 federal district court injunction that ordered the construction of the Medical and Mental Health Services Facility at the Orleans Justice Center, a project also known as Phase III, that New Orleans Sheriff Susan Hutson has opposed.

In signaling how he would end the case, Justice Alito pointed to the plain text of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, or PLRA, which says that "[n]othing in this section shall be construed to authorize the courts, in exercising their remedial powers, to order the construction of prisons."

"Because the prison-building injunction was illegal from the beginning, the courts below should have terminated it," Justice Alito wrote in the dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Thomas.

Justice Alito said in his opinion that the PLRA also provides that after two years, any injunctive prison relief can be terminated unless the court finds an ongoing constitutional violation, the relief is narrowly drawn, and it is the least intrusive option.

Hutson filed her motion to terminate the injunction four years after it was issued, but first the district court, then the Fifth Circuit, shut down her efforts.

Justice Alito said he would have taken the case to remedy what he viewed as errors by the lower courts, framing the case as a major issue of separation of powers regarding federal courts.

From a procedural perspective, the case accentuates a circuit split as to which party bears the burden when a defendant moves to terminate court orders in lawsuits focusing on prison conditions.

The Ninth Circuit holds that a defendant seeking termination must prove three factors under the PRLA: that there is no current and ongoing constitutional violation, and the existing relief is more extensive than necessary, a requirement that makes termination harder.

In the First Circuit, on the other hand, the movant's only burden is to show the timing requirement has been met. The burden then shifts to the plaintiffs to prove that the current and ongoing violation exists, that the relief remains necessary, and that it is narrowly drawn and least intrusive. The Fifth Circuit, which previously fell into this camp, later shifted position, holding that to argue and prove the three PRLA factors in addition to file a timely motion.

"The Fifth Circuit erroneously resolved an important issue of federal law on which there is a circuit split," Justice Alito wrote. "This case cried out for our review. By failing to intervene, we leave New Orleans to pay for the Fifth Circuit's serious errors."

Lester Duhé, the press secretary for Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, whose office represents Hutson, told Law360 in an email that the parish jails face "challenges" to maintain a safe and fully-staffed facility, and that court orders to build and staff a new building "only make that job harder."

"We are disappointed with the court's decision to decline review but we are grateful to Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch for their votes to hear the case and recognition that federal courts have no business ordering states and localities to build prisons," Duhé said.

Several aspects of Phase III, which would consist of an 89-bed mental health annex to the Orleans Parish jail, have been controversial.

The idea for the facility arose out of a federal consent decree entered in June 2013 between the Department of Justice, the Orleans Parish Sheriff, and a class of plaintiffs represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center who filed a lawsuit in 2012 accusing the parish jail of abusive conditions.

In 2017, then-Sheriff Marlin Gusman, signed onto a plan that would have spearheaded the construction of Phase III with the goal of housing male and female detainees with acute mental disorders.

The project was expected to be completed within 24 to 40 months with an estimated cost of $51 million. The cost has soared to more than $100 million.

Critics of the project have said that the facility's design — a circular layout with a central command center allowing for constant observation of inmates, known as panopticon — is an inhumane form of confinement.

Two 2019 district court orders required New Orleans to design, fund and build the facility, with monthly progress reports.

After assuming office in 2022 after campaigning against Phase III, however, Hutson filed a motion to terminate all orders requiring construction, invoking the PRLA.

In her filings, Hutson argued that a section of the PLRA — 3626(a)(1)(C) — prohibits federal courts from ordering the construction of prisons. She also argued that, even if the orders were once valid, the PLRA requires automatic termination of all prospective relief after two years, unless plaintiffs meet a statutory burden to justify continuing it.

Following a two-week hearing, a federal magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, later adopted by the district court, denying the city's motions. The district court rejected Hutson's argument, stating that it had not actually ordered construction, and issuing an order overriding the sheriff's refusal to sign a construction agreement, and threatening severe sanctions for any further delays.

A panel for the Fifth Circuit upheld the ruling, and the full court denied en banc review.

Hutson's office did not respond to a comment request.

--Editing by Alyssa Miller.