United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1677

___________________________

Human Rights Defense Center,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Union County, Arkansas; Ricky Roberts, Union County Sheriff, in his individual

and official capacities; Captain Richard Mitcham, Jail Administrator, in his

individual and official capacities; Lt. Paul Kugler, Assist. Jail Administrator, in his

individual and official capacities; John Doe, #1-10 in their individual and official capacities,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees,

------------------------------

Clark-Fox Family Foundation; The Marshall Project; Prison Journalism Project;

Arch City Defenders; Missourians to Abolish the Death Penalty; Center for

Appellate Litigation; Florida Justice Institute; Just Detention International; Prison

Law Office; Rights Behind Bars; Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center;

Uptown People’s Law Center,

lllllllllllllllllllllAmici on Behalf of Appellant(s).

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - El Dorado

 ____________

Submitted: February 13, 2024
Filed: August 6, 2024

____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON,1 and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

 

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge. 

Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) sued Union County and various

officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. HRDC alleged that the defendants violated the First

and Fourteenth Amendments when they refused to accept publications that the Center

mailed to detainees. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, and the

district court2 denied HRDC’s post-trial motion for relief. HRDC appeals, and we

affirm.

I.

HRDC is a “non-profit organization that advocates and seeks progressive

change in the criminal justice system.” As part of its advocacy work, the organization

publishes magazines and books for prisoners to inform them about their legal rights. 

 In 2017, HRDC began mailing copies of its publications to detainees at the Union

County Detention Center in El Dorado, Arkansas.

The Union County Detention Center houses approximately 185 persons, most

of whom are pretrial detainees. Approximately nine inmates participating in a state

1

Judge Colloton became chief judge of the circuit on March 11, 2024. See 28

U.S.C. § 45(a)(1).

2The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Arkansas.

-2-
work-release program are also assigned to the detention center. In 2012, the County

implemented a policy limiting incoming mail for detainees to postcards only. The

County adopted this policy to reduce avenues for contraband to enter the facility and

to conserve staff resources. The policy did not apply to inmates participating in the

work-release program.

In 2018, the County began scanning incoming mail for detainees. Detainees

access the scanned mail on tablet computers and kiosks in the detention center. The

County does not scan publications, but the tablets and kiosks contain an application

that allows detainees to access electronic books. 

The executive director of HRDC knew about the County’s postcard-only policy

when it began mailing its publications to detainees at the detention center. The

County returned some of the mail with the message, “Return to Sender Reason: Post

Cards Only.” Most mailings were returned without explanation or were not returned

at all. 

HRDC sued the County and several officials under § 1983, claiming that the

postcard-only policy violates the First Amendment. HRDC also alleged that the

defendants violated the Due Process Clause by rejecting mailings without explanation

and by failing to provide an appeal process for rejected mail. 

At trial, HRDC presented the testimony of its executive director, the sheriff of

Union County, the administrator of the detention center, and an expert on jail

administration. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law for the

defendants on one claim, and the jury found for the defendants on the rest. The

district court denied HRDC’s motions for judgment as a matter of law, and HRDC

appeals. 

-3-
II.

Publishers have a limited right to communicate with prisoners under the First

Amendment. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 408 (1989). “[T]here is no

question that publishers who wish to communicate with those who, through

subscription, willingly seek their point of view have a legitimate First Amendment

interest in access to prisoners.” Id. (emphasis added). Some courts have concluded

that this interest extends to unsolicited communications with prisoners, see Prison

Legal News v. Livingston, 683 F.3d 201, 213-14 (5th Cir. 2012); Hrdlicka v. Reniff,

631 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2011), but this court has not addressed the point. Even

assuming that publishers have a First Amendment interest in sending unsolicited

communications to prisoners, we conclude that HRDC has not shown a constitutional

violation.

A prison regulation that impinges on a publisher’s protected communication

with prisoners is valid if “reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives.” 

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 99 (1987); Hum. Rts. Def. Ctr. v. Baxter County,

999 F.3d 1160, 1164 (8th Cir. 2021). That determination depends on (1) whether the

regulation is rationally connected to a legitimate and neutral governmental interest;

(2) whether the publisher has an alternative means of exercising the constitutional

right; (3) the impact that accommodating the publisher’s asserted right would have

on prison staff, prisoners, and resources; and (4) whether ready alternatives to the

regulation exist. Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-91; see also Abbott, 490 U.S. at 414-19.

The jury in this case considered those factors and found that the defendants did

not violate the First Amendment. The district court then denied HRDC’s renewed

motion for judgment as a matter of law. We review the denial of the motion de novo,

considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Structural

Polymer Grp., Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp., 543 F.3d 987, 991 (8th Cir. 2008). Viewing the

-4-
facts in the light most favorable to the verdict, and assuming for analysis that we

consider application of the Turner standard de novo, we conclude that the postcardonly policy did not violate the First Amendment.

The postcard-only policy is rationally related to legitimate penological

objectives. The County’s interests in reducing contraband and promoting institutional

efficiency are legitimate. Weiler v. Purkett, 137 F.3d 1047, 1050 (8th Cir. 1998) (en

banc) (reducing contraband); Simpson v. County of Cape Girardeau, 879 F.3d 273,

279 (8th Cir. 2018) (institutional efficiency). The County presented evidence that the

postcard-only policy reduced avenues for contraband to enter the detention center and

reduced the time required for staff to check incoming mail. 

HRDC also had alternative means of communicating with detainees. Since

2018, the County’s kiosks and tablets have supported an application for reading

electronic materials. The sheriff and the jail administrator testified that HRDC could

have worked with the application vendor to provide its publications to detainees. 

While HRDC may prefer to mail paper copies of its publications, alternatives “need

not be ideal.” Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 135 (2003). HRDC notes that the

kiosks and tablets were not available in 2017 when it first began mailing publications

to Union County detainees. But HRDC’s claim at trial concerned an undifferentiated

period from 2017 through 2023, and it is appropriate to consider the entire period

when evaluating the reasonableness of the County’s policy. 

At trial, HRDC proposed an alternative policy: The County could allow

detainees to receive publications mailed by publishers but exclude publications

mailed by others. HRDC argues that adopting this policy would not require

reallocation of resources or additional expenditures. The organization points out that

the County already accepts publications addressed to inmates in the work-release

-5-
program. And HRDC cites the sheriff’s testimony that the County does not search

publishers’ mailings. 

The evidence, however, was inconsistent on the question of searching mail

from publishers. The sheriff testified at another point that the County does search

publishers’ mailings. The jail administrator testified that the County searches

publications. Assuming, as we must, that the jury resolved this factual dispute against

HRDC, it is evident that searching publications for 185 prisoners rather than just nine

would require reallocation of staff resources and impose “greater than de minimis

cost” on the County. Simpson, 879 F.3d at 281. 

We thus conclude that the County’s policy was reasonably related to legitimate

penological objectives and consistent with the First Amendment. The district court

correctly denied HRDC’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on that claim.

HRDC also alleges that the County violated the organization’s right to due

process of law by failing to provide adequate notice and opportunity to be heard

about rejected mailings. This court said in a prior decision that “[s]ome process was

due HRDC when its mailings were rejected,” but “due process does not require

copy-by-copy notice [if] later denials of identical publications amount to the routine

enforcement of a rule with general applicability.” Hum. Rts. Def. Ctr., 999 F.3d at

1167 (second alteration in original) (internal quotation omitted). 

HRDC complains that not all publications that it mailed to Union County were

identical so it was entitled to something akin to “copy-by-copy notice.” But HRDC

received notice that some of its publications were rejected because they violated the

postcard-only policy. In fact, the executive director of HRDC testified that the

organization began mailing publications to detainees in Union County precisely

because it wanted to challenge the postcard-only policy. There was no need for the

-6-
County to provide additional notice that different publications were rejected based

on the same postcard-only policy. And as in our prior decision, HRDC was not

entitled to a formal appeal process because the organization challenged the validity

of the postcard-only policy, not the rejection of individual mailings under that policy. 

Id.

HRDC argues finally that the district court abused its discretion by failing to

give a curative instruction after the County’s attorney referred to the Turner standard

as a “rational basis” standard. The Turner standard is “‘very similar,’ if not identical,

to rational basis review.” Aref v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 242, 259 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (internal

quotation omitted); see United States v. Brandon, 158 F.3d 947, 952 (6th Cir. 1998). 

But even assuming there is a material difference between the two standards, the jury

instructions described the Turner standard, and no further instruction was necessary. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-7-