§ 3626(b)(2) (the “termination provision”). The supervising tribunal may refuse to terminate jurisdiction only if it makes written findings “that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current or ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 3626(b)(3) (the “prospective relief provision”). Although several district court judges have sustained inmates’ constitutional challenges to the PLRA, every federal appellate court to consider the question, other than this one, has upheld the constitutionality of the Act. See Benjamin v. Jacobson, 172 F.3d 144, 166 (2d Cir.1999) (en banc) (<HOLDING>); Imprisoned Citizens Union v. Ridge, 169 F.3d
holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that ch 980 does not violate principles of equal protection holding that section 3626b2 does not violate separationofpowers principles holding that the act does not violate separation of powers is not void for vagueness and does not violate principles of due process by allowing a victim veto precluding application of the act holding the best interest of the child standard does not violate federal constitutional principles