2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-24-2006 

# J ones v . B rown P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-3823

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" J one s v . B r own" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 501. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/501P RE CE DE NT I AL

I N THE UNI TE D ST ATE S COURT O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N O

. 03- 3823

RO N A LD C. J O N ES, A ppel l ant

v. M . B R O W N , In te rn a l A f f a ir s O f c .; S. SO O T K O O S, A s s oci at e W ar den; R O Y L

. H E N D R I C K S, W ar den

O n A pp eal F rom t he U nit ed S t at es

D istri ct C o u rt F o rt h e D i s t r i c to f

N e w J e r s e y ( D

. C

. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 02- cv- 03045) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n . G arrettE

. B row n , Jr.2 N O S. 04- 4426 and 04- 4493

J AM AAL W. AL L AH; KE VI N J AC KS ON;

L E NNI E KI RK L AND

v. *R I C H A R D J

. C O D E Y , A ct i ng G overnor , N

. J

. ( O ffi ci al C apac i t y ) ; J A M E S M C G R E E V E Y ( Per s o n a l / I n d i v i dual C a p a c it y); D E V O N B R O W N ,C o m m is s io n e r, D e p t. o f C o rr ., N. J

. ( Of f i c i a l / P e r s o n a l /& I n d i v i d u a l Ca p a c i t y ) ; TE RRANCE M O O R E , A dm i nis t rat or, E astJer seyS t at e P ri son, R ahw ay , N

. J. ( Off i c i a l / Pe r s o n a l & I n d i v i d u a l Ca p a c i t y ) ; J OH N/ J AN E DO ES ( Off i c i a l / Pe r s o n a l & I n d i v i d u a l Ca p a c i t y ) ; RO Y L. H E NDR I C K S ; RO B E R T S HABBI C K ; WAYNE S ANDE RS ON

* (P u rsua n t t o F

. R

. A

. P

. 4 3 (c)) D e v o n B ro w n , T e rr a n c e M o o re , R o yL . H e n d ri c k s , R ober tShabbi ck, W ayne Sander s on A ppel l ant s i n N o. 04- 4426 J amaal W

. A l l ah; K evi n J acks on; L enni e K i r kl an,

A ppel l ant s i n N o. 04- 44933 O n A pp eal F rom t he U nit ed S t at es D i s t r i c tC o u r tF o rt h e D i s t r i c to f N e w J e r s e y ( D

. C

. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 02- cv- 05298) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . W ill iam H . W a lls

A r gued A pr i l 25, 2006 B E FO R E : FU E N T E S, ST A PL E T O N and A L A R C O N , * C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: A ugus t24, 2006 )

R onal d C

. J ones ( A r gued) N or t hern St at e Pr i s on 168 Fr ont age Road P. O

. B ox 2300 N ew ark, N J 07114- 2300 A ppel l antPr o Se i n N o. 03- 3823 Pet erC

. H arvey Pat r i ck D eA l m ei da C hr i s t opherC

. J os ephs on ( A r gued)

* H on. A r t hurL

. A l ar con, Seni orU n it ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge forthe N i nt h C i r cui t , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.4 O ffi ce of N ew J er s eyA t t or neyG ener al P. O

. B ox 112 R i char d J

. H ughes J us t i ce Com pl ex T r ent on, N J 08625 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ant s i n N o. 04- 4426 and A ppel l ees i n N os . 03- 3823 and 04- 4493 ShavarD

. J eff

r i es ( A r gued) Set on H al l L aw School 833 M cC ar t erH i ghw ay N ew ark, N J 07102 A t t or neyforA ppel l ant s i n N o. 04- 4493 and A ppel l ees i n N o. 04- 4426 G era ld J. Pa p p ert C al vi n R

. K oons J ohn O

. J

. Shel l enber ger Jo h n G

. K n o rr, III O f f ice o f A tto rn e yG e n e ra l o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia 1 5 th F loo r - Straw b erryS q u are H arr i s bur g, PA 17120 A t t or ney s forA m i cus C ur i ae C o m m o n w e a lth o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia A m i cus A ppel l ant in N o . 04- 4426 and A m i cus A ppel l ee i n N os . 03- 3823 and 04- 4493 A ar on C hr i s t opherW heel er J ames S. Pavl i chko D err i ck D al e Font r oy T heodor e B

. Savage Gr a t e r f o r d S CI

### Ath ird ap p eal th at w as o rig in ally co n so lid ated , Tay lor 1 

### v. O n ey, No

. 04 -206 2, has been se vere d and is bein g re so lv ed i n anot pr e c e de nt i a lopi ni on. 5 P. O

. B ox 244 G r at er for d, PA 19426 Pr o Se A m i ci A ppel l ees i n N os . 03- 3823 and 04- 4426 E dw ar d L

. B ar ocas A m er i can Ci vi l L i ber t i es U ni on of N ew J er s eyFoundat i on P. O

. B ox 750 N ew ark, N J 07101 A t t orneyfor A C L U N J and A ssoci at i on of C ri m in a l D efen se L aw y ers A m i ci A ppel l ant s i n N o. 04- 4426 and A m i ci A ppel l ees i n N os . 03- 3823 and 04- 4493

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

ST A PL E T O N , C i r cui tJ udge: W e have befor e us t w o cas es t hathave be en cons ol i dat ed o n a p p e a l. W h ile th e D istric t C o u rts in th e se c a se s b o th

1 addr es s ed the cons ti tut i onal i t yof a N ew J er s eyr egul at i on

### Plaintiff Jon es appeal s from the Dis tric t Co urt’ s 2 

### res olut i on of anum

be r of othe r i s s ue s . W e a gr e e wi th i ts reso lutio no f

th o se issu es an dw ill af f irm i t s j u d g m ent w ith r e s pe c t t o the m for e s s e nt i a lly th e r e a s ons art i c ul at e d i n the o p in io no f

th e D istrict C o urt. 6 governi ng t he pr oces s i ng of i ncomi ng i nm at e l egal m ai l , t hey re a c h e d c o n f

lictin g c o n c lu sio n s. T h e se c o n so lid a te d a p p e a ls pr es ent tw o pr i nci pal i s s ues . Fi r s t , do s t at e pr i s oner s have a n i nt er es tpr ot ect ed byt he Fi r s tA m endmenti n bei ng p r es entw hen t hei r i ncomi ng l egal m ai l i s opened? W e conc l ude thatourpr i or cas e l aw es t abl i s hes t hat t hey do. Second, m ayN ew J er s eyopen pr i s oner s ’ l egal m ai l out s i de of t he pri s oner s ’ pr es ence pur s uant to a sta te p o licy in ten d e d to p ro tec t th e sa f e tya n d se c u rityo f

its p r i s o n s b yr e d u c i n g t h e r i s k o f a n t h r a x c o n t a m i n a t i o n ? We c o n c lu d e th a t N e w Je rse yh a s n o t sh o w n th a t it s le g a l m a il p o licyis re a so n a b ly re late d to its in ter e st in p ro tec tin g th e sa f e ty and s ecu ri ty o f i t s pr i s ons . A ccor di ngl y , N ew J er s ey ’ s l egal m a il p o licyd o e s n o t w ith sta n d c o n stitu tio n a l s c ru tin y . W e w ill aff i r m t he gran t of i nj unct i ve r el i ef i n A l l ah and r ever s e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s um m aryj udgm entfor t he defenda nt s i n Jon es. 2 I. A. Pr i ort o O ct ober19, 2001, N ew J er sey r egul at i ons governi ng t he D epart m entof C or r ect i ons r equi r ed that
“ [ i]nco m i ng l egal corr espon den ce be o pen ed an d inspect ed in fr ontof t he i nm at e t o w hom i ti s addr es s ed. ” See 33 N

. J

. R eg. 4 0 3 3 (a ) ( O c t. 2 3 , 2 0 0 1 ).7 O n S eptem ber 11, 2001 , i n respon se t o the t err ori st at t acks on t he W or l d T r ade Cent erand Pent agon and a s s oci at ed d isru p ti o n s, th e A c tin g G o v e rn o r o f N e w Je rse y , D o n a ld D iFra n ce sco , d ec lare d a state o f e m erg en cyin N ew Jerse y . In t hat decl ar at i on, E xecut i ve O r der N o. 131- 2001, G overnor D i Fr ance s co di r ect ed
t hat t he heads of any agenc y ori ns t rum ent al i t yof th e S t at e go vernm en t w ith a u th o rityto p ro m u lg a te rul es m ay , fort he dur at i on of the Execut i ve O rd e r, su b

jec t to m yp rio r a p p ro v a l an d in cons ul t at i on w i t h t he S t at e di r ect orof Em er gency M a n a g e m e n t, w ai ve, suspe nd orm odi f y any exist ing rul e the enf

or cem ent of w hi ch w ould be d e trim e n ta l to th e p u b lic w e lfa re d u rin gth is em er gency , not w i t hs t andi ng t he pr ovi s i ons of the A dm i ni s t r at i ve Pr ocedu re A ctoranyl aw t o the c o n tr a ry. E x e c u tiv e O rd e r N o . 1 3 1 -2 0 0 1 (S e p t. 11 , 2 0 0 1 ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). In S e p tem b e r a n d O c to b e r 2 0 0 1 , o n e o r m o re in d iv id u a ls m ai l ed a s t r i ng of l et t er s cont ai ni ng anthr ax thr ough t he pos t al s y s t em. A t l eas tfourl et t er s cont ai ni ng anthr ax w er e pr oces s ed in th e H a m ilt o n , N .J. m a il p ro c e ss in g c e n ter
. In a ll, f iv e p e o p le di ed and t hi r t een ot her s w er e s i ckene d byt he mai l i ngs . I n N ew J er s ey , t her e w er e no fa t al i t i es , but the re w er e fi ve conf i r m ed and t w o suspec t ed infect i on s. I n r es pons e t o t hes e an t hr ax mai l i ngs , t he A ct i ng8 C om m i ssi on er of t he N ew Jer seyD epart m ent of C orr ections, act i ng undert he author i t ypr ovi ded by t he s t at ew i de dec l ar at i on o f e m e rg e n c y , issu e d a n a m e n d m e n t to N e w Je rse y ’s le g a l m a il p o licyth a t su sp e n d e d th e re g u lato ry re q u ire m e n t th a t leg a l m a il be opene d i n t he addr es s ee pr i s oner ’ s pr es ence . T he s t at ement a c c o m p a n y in g th e a m e n d m e n t re a d s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: N

. J

. A

. C

. 10A : 18- 3. 4( b) r equi r es t hati ncomi ng leg a l co rre sp o n d e n c e b e o p e n e d a n d in sp e c ted in fr ontof the i nm at e t o w hom i ti s addr essed. S u spensi on of N

. J. A

. C

. 10 A :1 8 -3 .4 (b ) is n ec essa ryto p rotec t th e he alth , saf etyan d w elfa re of the peo ple and t o aid i n the preventi on of loss to a n d d e s tru c tio n o f

p ro p e rt y. . . . T h is s p e c ial a d o p ted a m e n d m e n t is nece s s ary i n or dert o i nhi bi tt he pos s i bl e s pr ead of cont ami nat i on s houl d a t oxi c b i ol ogi cal s ubs t ance be i nt r oduced byw ayof i ncomi ng l egal corr espon den ce add res sed t o an i nm at e w ho is i ncar ce rat ed ata fa ci l i t yof the D epart m entof C or r ect i ons . T he D epart m enti s es tabli s hi ng r emot e ar eas at eac h fac i l i t y for t he pr oces s i ng of al l i ncomi ng corr es pondence b yt r ai ned s t aff m ember s . I n m at es s hal l notbe pr es entor i nvol ved i n t he pr o ce ssi ng oropeni ng of any in c o m in g c o rr e s p o n d e n c e . 33 N

. J. R eg. 40 33 (a) (O ct
. 23 , 20 01 ). T he regu l at i on no w reads, in p e rtin e n t p a rt:9 I ns pect i on of i ncomi ng l egal corr es pondence ( a) I ncomi ng l egal corr es pond e n c e s h al l be o p e n e d a n d i n s p e c t e d f

o rc o n t r a b a n d o n l y. (b ) In c o m in g leg a l co r r e s p o n d e n c e sh a ll n o tbe r ead orcopi ed. T he cont entof the e n v e lo p e m a yb e re m o v e d a n d sh a k e n lo o se to ens ure tha tno contr aband i s i ncl uded. A ft ert he enve l o p e h a s b e e n i n s p e c t e d t h e c o r r e s p o n d e n ce s hal l be gi ven t o t he i nm at e. N .J . A d m in . C o d e § 1 0 A :1 8 -3 .4

. T he A s s i s t antC om m i s s i onerof the D epart m entof C or r ect i ons i s s ued a mem o t o al l C or r ect i ons admi ni s t r at o rs p r o v i d i n g g u i d e l i n e s f

o r t h e h a n d l i n g o f l e g a l ma i l

. Th a tme mo speci fi es: 1

. A C o rre c tio n a l O f f ice r sh a ll o p e n a ll i n co m i ng l egal corr es pondence s i n t he ma i l r o o m. 2

. T h e o f

f ic e r sh a ll l o g th e in f

o rm a tio n in accordan ce w i t h cu rr ent pr act i ces. 3

. T h e in c o m in g leg a l c o rre sp o n d e n c e sh a ll b e opened and i ns pect ed for contr aband .

. . . T he cont ent s s hal l notbe r ead or ce n so red b ythe o ff

icer.

### J am a a lW

. Al l ah, Ke vi n J a c ks on, and Le nni e Ki rkl and 3 

### (“ the Allah plai ntiffs”)

. 10 4. A ft er t he envel ope has been i ns pect ed, t he offi cers hal l s eal t he enve l ope w i t h t amper p ro o f e v id e n c e ta p e . . . .

*** 5. A ft ert he i ns pect i on has been c om pl et ed th e c o rre sp o n d e n c e sh a ll b e d e liv e re d to t he i nm at e. M em orandu m from JeffreyJ. B urns, A ssi st ant C om m ’r , N

. J. D ep ’t o f C o rrecti o n s, to A ll A d m inistrators (O ct. 1 9 , 2 0 0 1 ); A p p . B ro w n a t R a 9 2 -9 3

. T he amendm ent i ndi cat es t hat t he sus pens i on of form er § 1 0 A :1 8 -3 .4 (b ) w ill re m a in in e f f e c t u n til th e e n d o f

th e sta te o f e me r g e n c yd e c l a r e d o n Se p t e mbe r1 1 , 2 0 0 1 i n Ex e c u t i ve Or d e r No. 1 3 1

- 2 0 0 1

. To d a t e , t h e s t a t e o f e me r g e n cyr emai ns i n for ce a nd t he sus pens i on of for m er § 10A : 18- 3. 4( b) r emai ns in e f f e c t. B. T he pl ai nt i ffs i n A l l ah and the pl ai n ti ff i n Jones are 3 in m a tes in th e N e w Je rse yc o rre c tio n a l sy ste m w h o se leg a l m a il h as b ee n o p en ed o u tsi d e th eir p rese n ce p u rsua n t to N ew Jerse y ’s re v ise d leg a l m a il p o licy . B o th se ts o f p lain ti f f s f iled su it i n

### The de fe ndant s i n A lla h ar e De von Br own, the 4 

### C o mmissio n er o f

th e N ewJersey

D ep artm ent o f

C o rrectio n s, Terr anceMo ore, the nowfo rm er Adminis tr at or of

East Je rs ey Stat e Pri son (“EJS P ”) , Roy Hendri cks, the nowfo rm er Adminis tr at or of

New Jers ey

Stat e Pri son (“NJSP ”) , Rob ert Sha b bi c k, ac orr e c t i ons s e rge ant at EJ SP, and W ay

ne S an d erso n , a co rrectio n s serg eant at N JS P

. T h e d ef en d ants in Jones are R o y

H en drick s, S tev enS o o tk o o s, A sso ciate Admi ni s tr at or

of NJ SP, and Matthe w Br own, an In v est i gat or w ithth e S p ecial Inv estig atio n s D iv isio nat N JS P

. The Di s tri c t

Court i n Allah ap p ears to h av e ef f ectiv ely 5 

### co nv ertedth e cro ss-m o tio n s f o r j u d g m ent o n th e p lead in g s into cro ss-m o tio n s f

o r summ ary j u d g m ent. N eith er p arty o b j ects to this tr eatm ent on app ea l andwe as sum e i t not to have be enan ab u se o f d iscretio n . Se eRube rt
- Torres v . Hos pi tal San Pablo, Inc. , 205 F.3d 47 2, 47 5-76 (1st Cir. 20 00 ); 5C Wright & Mil le r, F ed era l Pra ctice &Pro ced

u re§ 1 3 7 1 at 2 7 5

. 11 N e w Je r s e y D istric t C o u rts a g a in st s tate c o rre c tio n a l o f f icia ls 4 a s s e rt in g , in tera lia , t hat t he legal m ai l po l i cyviol at es theirF i rs t A m endmentr i ghtof fr ee s peec h. T heys oughti nj unct i ve and m o n e ta ry re lie f

. I n A l l ah , on c r os s- m oti on s for j ud gm ent on t he p l eadings, t he D i str ic tC our trul ed thatt he l egal m ai l pol i cyvi ol at ed the p riso n e rs’ c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to b e p re se n t w h e n th e ir leg a l m a il i s opened. I tacc or di ngl yenj oi ned the s t at e offi ci al s fr om

5 e n f o r c i n g th e c h a l l e n g e d p o l i c y . Howev e r , c i t i n g t he uncert ai nt ynece s s ar i l yi nvol ved i n as s es s i ng t he r i s k of anthr ax12 co n ta m in ati o n at t h e ti m e o f th e p o li cy ’s ad o p ti o n , the C o u rt g r a n t e d t h e d e f

e n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s t h e p l a i n t i f f s ’ c l a i ms f o r m o n e ta ry d a m a g e s o n th e b a s is o f q u a lif ie d im m u n ity. I n Jones , b y co n tr ast, the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted s u m m ary jud g m en t to the D ef

en d an ts on all o f Jo n es’ c lai m s. In par t i cul ar , t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatN ew J er s ey ’ s l egal m a il p o lic yis a v a lid e x e rc is e o f a d m in is tr a tiv e d i s c re tio n . B efor e us now ar e the A l l ah defe ndant s ’ appea l of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr ant of i nj unct i ve r el i ef, t he A l l ah plai nti ffs’ cr os s - appea l of t he di s m i s s al on qual i fi ed i m m uni t ygr ounds of t hei rcl ai m form onet arydamages , and pl ai nt i ff J ones ’ appea l of t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o t he defe ndant s . W e ha ve j ur i s di ct i on overt he gr antof i nj unct i ve r el i ef i n A l l ah pur s uantt o 28 U

. S. C

. § 1292( a) and pende nt app el l a te j uri sdi ct i on ov er the p l ai nti ffs’ cr oss- app eal becau se the f ac ts r eg ard ing the m erit s o f th e in ju n cti o n o rde r are i nextr i cabl yi nt er t w i ned w i t h t hos e conc erni ng qual i fi ed i m m u n ity. S e e E. I

. DuPo n t d e Ne mou rs & Co. v . R hone P aul enc Fi ber & R es i n I nt er m edi at es , S. A

. S. , 269 F. 3d 187, 203 ( 3d C i r . 2001)

. T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent i n Jones i s a final or deroverw hi ch w e exe r ci s e j ur i s di ct i on p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1

. II. T he Supr eme C our t ’ s decisi o n i n Turne rv. Saf l ey , 482 U

. S. 78, 84 ( 1987) , governs ourr evi ew of N ew J er s ey ’ s l egal m a il p o lic y . See Bear d v. B anks , 1 2 6 S

. C t. 2 5 7 2 , 2 5 7 7 (20 0 6 ). T he T urner C our temph as i zed that“fe der al cour t s m us tt ake13 c o g n iz a n c e o f

th e v a lid c o n s titu tio n a l c la im s o f p ri s o n in m a te s .” 482 U

. S. at84. H ow ever , t he C our tal s o r ecogni zed thatpr i s on a d m in is tr a ti o n is “ a n in o r d in a te ly d if f ic u lt u n d e r ta k in g ,” a sp e c ts of w hi ch ar e “pec ul i ar l y w i t hi n t he pr ovi nce of t he l eg i s l at i ve and exe cut i ve br anche s of governm ent
. ” I d. at 85. I n li g h t of t hes e pr i nci pl es , t he C our thel d t hata pr ison r egul at i on t hat i m pinges on t he co nst i tuti on al ri gh t s of pri soners i s non et heles s v a lid , so lo n g a s th e re g u latio n “ is r e a so n a b lyre late d to l egi t i m at e penol ogi cal i nt er es t s . ” I d. at 89. T he Turne ra n a ly sis p res up po ses “t hat t he pl ai nti ff i nm at e has dem on strat ed tha t a cons t i tut i onal l y pr ot ect ed i nt er es ti s ats t ake. ” D eha rt v. H orn , 227 F

. 3 d 4 7, 51 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( en banc )

. A ccor di ngl y , i n t he i ns t ant cas e, our t hr es hol d t as k i s t o det erm i ne w hethert he N ew J er s eyl egal m ai l pol i cyi m p i nges on i nm at es ’ cons t i tut i onal ri g h ts atall

. If itd o es, w e m u st th en co n side r th e p o li cy ’s re la tio n s h ip to le g itim a te p e n o lo g ic a l in te re s ts
. A. T he Fi r s tA m endment , as i ncorpor at ed i n t he Four t eenth, pr oh i bi t s s t a t e s fr om “a br i dg i ng t he fr e edo m of s pe e c h. ” U

. S. C ons t
. A m end. I

. W e hel d i n B i er egu t hats t at e pr i s oner s , by virtue o f t heiri ncarcerat i on , “do no tfo rf e it theirF i rs t A m endmentr i ghtt o us e of the mai l s , ” 59 F. 3d at1452, and that a “pa t t ern and pr act i ce of op eni ng pr oper l ym arked i ncomi ng [l egal ] m ai l out s i de a n i n ma t e ’ s p r e s e n c e i nfr i nges comm uni cat i on pr ot ect ed by t he r i ght t o fr ee s peec h. ” 59 F. 3d at1452. W e s t r es sed thata patt ern and pr act i ce of openi ng p ro p e rlym a rk e d c o u rt m a il i s p a rticu la r ly tro u b lin g b e c a u se it
“ c h ill s p ro tec ted e x p re ss io n a n d m a y in h ib it th e in m a te’ s a b ili ty t o s p e a k , p r o t e s t , a n d c o mpl a i n o p e n l y , d i r e c t l y , a n d wi t h o ut

### I n Bi e re gu , we a l s o r

ul e d that apatt e rn and pr a c t i c e of 6 

### op ening legalm ai l outsi de the a ddre ss eepris on er ’s p re se nce im p in g e s o nth e inm ate’s rig h t to co urt access un d er th e F irst A m en dm ent rig h t to p etit io nclau se an dth e F o urteenth Am e ndm en t due pr oc e s s c l aus e , i nde pe nde nt of whe the r

the pri s one r c an s how “ a c t

ua li njury” t o hi s or

he r a ccess t o the co urts. 5 9 F .3 dat 1 4 5 5 . H o w ev er, as w e later reco g n iz e din Oliv er , thi s a l t e rnat i veho l di ngof Bi e regu w as sub sequ ently abr ogat e d by the Supr e m e Court ’ s de c i s i on i n Lewis v . Casey , 5 1 8 U .S . 3 4 3 (1 9 9 6 ). Oliv er , 118 F. 3d at 178. 14 r es ervat i on w i t h t he court
. ” I d. W e reaff

i r m t hathol di ng of B i er egu to d a y . A sta te 6 pat t ern and pr act i ce, or , as i s t he ca s e her e, exp li ci tpol i cy , of o p e n in g leg a l m a il o u tsid e th e p re se n c e o f th e a d d re ss e e in m a te i nt er fe r es w i t h pr ot ect ed comm uni cat i ons , s t r i ps t hos e pr ot ect ed c o m m u n ica tio n s o f

th e ir c o n f

id e n tiality , an d a c c o rd in g ly i m pi nges upon t he i nm at e’ s r i ghtt o fre ed o m of s peec h. T he pr act i ce de pr i ves t he expr es s i on of confi dent i al i t y and chi l l s t he i n ma t e s ’ p r o t e c t e d e x p r e s s i o n , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e s t a t e ’ s g oodfai th pr ot es t at i ons t hat i t does not , and w i l l not , r ead the cont ent o f th e c o m m u n ica ti o n s . T h is is s o b e c a u se “ th e o n lyw a yto e n su re th a t m a il i s n o t re a d w h e n o p e n e d

. . . is to re q u ire th a t it b e d o n e in th e p re s e n c e o f th e in m a te to w h o m it is a d d re s s e d .” I d. at1456 ( ci t i ng W

olf f v. McD on n e ll , 4 18 U

. S. 539, 576- 77 (1 9 7 4 ))

. W e r ej ectt he arg um entof am i cus cur i ae , t he C o m m o n w ea lth o f P en n sy lvan ia, that the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s15 deci s i on i n Lew is v. C as ey , 518 U

. S. 34 3 (19 9 6) , and our s ubs equentdeci s i on i n O l i verv. Fauver , 1 1 8 F

. 3 d 1 7 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ), r e q u i r e t h a tt h e p l a i n t i f f s p r o v e s o me i n

j u r y - i n - f a ct bey ond t he i nfr i ngem ent of cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed s peec h. T he S upr eme C our ti n C as ey ru led th a t in o rd e r to p re ss a c laim fori nt er fer ence w i t h t he r i ght t o cour tacc es s , a pr i s onerpl ai nt i ff m us tal l ege that he or she has been a ctual l yi nj ur ed i n hi s orher a c c e s s to th e c o u rt s , i.e ., t hat he or s he has been hi nder ed i n an eff or tt o pur s ue a nonf

r i vol ous l egal cl ai m . 518 U

. S. at349- 53. A lleg a tio n s th a t th e sta te h a s n o t p ro v id e d a d e q u a te pr econdi t i ons t o eff

ectuat e t he r i ght of acc es s t o t he court , s uch as l aw l i br ar i es o r lega l s ervi ces , ar e i ns uffi ci ent
. R ather , t he i nm at e m u sts how t hathi s orherexer ci s e of the r i ghtati s s ue, t he r i g h t o f ac ces s i ng t he court s t o s ecur e j udi ci al r el i ef, has b e e n in f ri n g e d in s o m e c o n s e q u e n tia l w a y . I d. Fol l ow i ng C as ey , w e rul ed i n O l i verv. Fauver , 118 F. 3d 175 ( 3d C i r . 1997) , t hat a pri s oner coul d not s uppor t a cl ai m for deni al o f co ur tacc es s s t emm i ng fr om i nt er fer ence w i t h l egal m ai l w i t ho ut pr od ucing ev i den ce of ac tu a l inj uryt o h i s access t o t h e c o u r t s . I n s o d o i n g , we ma d e c l e a rt h a tt o t h e e x t e n twe h ad rul ed otherw i s e i n B i er egu , t hathol di ng of B i er egu was “ef fec t i vel yoverrul ed. ” I

d. a t 1 7 8

. W h ile w e d id n o t ex p re ss ly lim it o u r sta tem e n t th a t B i er egu w a s “ e f f e c tiv e lyo v e rru led ” to excl ude i t s Fi r s tA m endment hol di ng, not hi ng i n t he r eas oni ng of C as ey o r O l i ver su g g e sts th a t a p riso n e r alleg in g th a t o f f icia ls have opened hi s l egal m ai l out s i de of hi s pr es ence and ther eby vi ol at ed hi s Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s need a ll eg e any cons equent i al i nj ur ys t emm i ng fr om t hatvi ol at i o n , as i de fr om t he vi ol at i on i t s el f. U nl i ke the pr ovi si on of l egal l i br ar i es or l egal s ervi ces, w hich a re no t con st i tuti on al “end s i n them sel ves,16 b u t o n lyth e m e a n s f o r e n su rin g ‘a re a so n a b lya d e q u a te opp o r tu n i t yt o p r e s e n tc l a i me d v i o l a t i o n s o f f u n d a me n t al cons t i tut i onal r i ght s t o t he cou rt s , ’ ” C as ey , 518 U

. S. at351, pr ot ect i on of an i nm at e’ s fr eedo m to engage i n pr ot ect ed comm uni cat i ons i s a cons t i tut i onal end i n i t s el f. B. T he fa ctt hat the leg al m ai l po l i cybu rdens pri soners’ Fi r s t A m endment r i ght s does not , how ever , t el l us w hethert he pol i cyi s cons t i tut i onal

. Pr i s oner s nece s s ar i l y s acr i fi ce manyof t he co nst i tu ti on al ri gh t s avai l able t o n on -i ncarcerat ed cit i zens. See Banks , 126 S. C t
. at257 7 -78. ( “[I ] m pr i s onm entdoes not aut om at i cal l ydepr i ve a pr i s onerof ce r t ai n cons ti tut i onal pr ot ect i ons , i ncl udi ng t hos e of t he Fi r s tA m endment

. B utatt he s ame t i me th e Con s t i tut i on s om et i m es per m i t s gr eat err es t r i ct i on of s uch right s i n a pr i s on t han i tw oul d al l ow el s ew her e. ”) (cit ati o n s o m itted); O v e rto n v . B a zz e tta , 539 U

. S. 126, 131 ( 2003) ( “M anyof the l i ber t i es and p ri v il eges enj oy ed byot her ci t i zens m us tbe s ur r ender ed byt he prison er. ”)

. T he r el evant q u e s t i o n , a s a r t i c u l a t e d b yt h e Su p r e me Cou r ti n Turne r , is w h e th e r th e leg a l m a il p o licy is “ re a so n a b lyre late d to leg iti m a te p e n o lo g ic a l in te re s ts .” 4 8 2 U .S . a t 8 9

. U nder t he t eac hi ngs of Turne r , t her e ar e tw o s t eps t o t ake in d eterm ining w h ethe r a p ri so n reg u lat ion is “r eas onabl yr el at ed t o l egi t i m at e penol ogi cal i nt er es t s . ” I d. “Fi r s t , t her e m us tbe a
‘ val i d, r at i onal connec t i on’ betw een the pr i s on r egul at i on and th e leg iti m a te g o v e rn m e n tal in ter e st p u t f o rw a rd to ju stif

yit. Th u s , a r e g u l a t i o n c a n n o tb e s u s t a i n e d whe r e t h e l o g i c al con necti on betw een the regul at i on and t he assert ed g oal i s so17 re m o te a s to re n d e r th e p o licya rb itrar yo r irra tio n a l” o r to demonst r at e thati t“r epr es ent s an exagger at ed re s pons e t o [the as s er t ed] obj ect i ves . ” Turne r , 482 U

. S. at89- 90 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) , 97- 98. T hus , “a r at i onal nexus betw een a r egul at i on a n d a le g itim a te p e n o lo g ic a l in te re s t is e s s e n tia l to its v a lid ity.” D eha rt v. H orn , 2 2 7 F

. 3 d 4 7 , 5 3 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ) (en b an c). O n the o ther h an d , “n o t al l pri so n reg u lat io n s th at are rat i on al l yrel at e d to [ a l egit i m at e st at e] i nter estpass Turne r ’s
‘ over al l r eas onabl enes s ’ s t andar d. ” I d. I f s u c h a r a t i onal rel at i ons hi p i s found t o exi s t , t hat“det erm i nat i on comm ence s r ather t han conc l udes ouri nqui r y . ” I d. T he othert hr ee Turne r f a c to rs to b e c o n sid e re d a re (1 ) “ w h e th e r in m a tes re tain al t ernat i ve means of exe r ci s i ng t he ci r cumscr i bed ri ght , ” ( 2) t he bur den on pri s on r es our ces t hatw oul d be i m pos ed by acc om m o d a t i ng t he r i ght , and ( 3) “w hethert her e ar e al t ernat i ves to th e re g u latio n th a t ‘ f

u lly a c c o m m o d a te[ ] th e p riso n e rs’ rig h ts atde mi ni m i s cos tt o val i d p enol ogi cal i nt er es t s . ” I d. at51 ( q u o t i n g f

r o m W at er m an v. Far m er , 1 8 3 F

. 3 d 2 0 8 , 2 1 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 9 )). “O f cours e, t he Turne ra n a ly sis is a p p ro p ria te o n lyin cases w here a p riso n p oli cyi s i m pingi ng on i nm at es’ cons t i tut i onal r i ght s ” and Turne r ’ s t w o- s t ep as s es s m entof r e a s on a bl e ne s s mus tbe made i n l i gh tof “ t he i nmat e ’ s i nt eres t i n engagi ng i n cons t i tut i onal l ypr ot ect ed ac t i vi t y . ” D eha rt , 227 F. 3d at51. W h ile th e u lti m a te b u rd e n o f p e rsu a sio n w it h re g a rd to t he re a so n a bleness of a regu l at i on res i des w i t h those c h a lle n g in g it, O v e r to n v . B a zz e tta , 5 3 9 U

. S

. 1 2 6 , 1 3 2 (20 0 3 ),18 th e d e f e n d a n t ad m in istra to rs m u st “ p u t f o rw a rd ” th e leg iti m a te g o v e rn m e n ta l in te re s t a lle g e d to ju s tif y th e re g u la tio n , Turne r , 4 8 2 U

. S

. at 89 , an d “‘d em o n str ate’ tha t th e p o lic y d raf ters
‘ coul d r at i onal l yhave s een a connec t i on’ betw een the pol i cyand [t hati nt er es t ]

. ” W

o lf v. A sh c ro

ft , 297 F. 3d 305, 308 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ). “[ T ]his b u rde n , tho u g h sli g h t, m u st ‘ am o u n t [] t o m o re t han a concl us or y as s er t i on. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng W

at er m an , 183 F. 3d at218 n. 9)

. A s w e expl ai ned i n W o lf , s at i s fy i ng t hi s bur den may or m ay no t requi re evidence; w here t he conn ect i on is o b v i ou s, comm on s ens e mays uffi ce: [W ] hi l e the connec ti on m aybe a mat t erof c o m m o n se n se in c e rta in in sta n c e s, su c h th a t a ruli ng on t hi s i s s ue bas ed onl yon t he pl eadi ngs m ay be approp ri at e, there m ay be si tuati o n s in w hi ch the conne ct i on i s nots o appar entand does r equi r e fa ctu al devel opm ent
. W hethert he r eq u i s i t e c o n n e c t i o n ma y b e f o u n d s o l e l y o n t he bas i s of “c om m on s ens e” w il l depend on the natur e of the ri gh t , t he n ature of the i nter est as s er t ed, t he natur e of the pr ohi bit ion, and the obvi ous nes s of i ts connec t i on t o t he pr offe r ed interest. T h e sh o w ing req u ir ed w il l vary dependi ng on how cl os e t he cour t per cei ves the connec t i on t o be. W o lf , 297 F. 3d at308- 09. W hen nei t hercomm on s ens e norevi dence demonst r at es a r eas onab le c aus al nexus – “w her e the l ogi cal connec t i on b e tw e e n th e re g u latio n a n d th e a ss e rte d g o a l is so re m o te a s to19 r endert he pol i cyarbi t r aryori rrati o n al ” ort o demonst r at e that t he r egul at i on “r epr es ent s an exa gger at e[d] r esp o n s e” – su m m a r y j u d g m e n t f o r th e d e f

e n d a n t ad m in istra to r is in a p p ro p ria te a n d th e p lain tiff in m a te m a yb e e n tit led to in ju n c tiv e re lie f

. See, e. g. , R am i r ezv. P ugh , 379 F. 3d 122, 130 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( “ I n t h e a b s e n c e o f a f a c tu a l r e c o r d , . . . we c a n n o t ig n o re th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t th e p ro sc rip tio n ra tio n a lly appl i es t o s uch a s m al l per cent age of t he

. . . i nm at e popul at i on th a t it s c o n n e c tio n to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s re h a b ili tativ e in ter e st ‘is s o r emo te as t o r ender[i t ] arbi t r aryori r r at i onal

. ’ ”) ( quot i ng Turne r , 4 8 2 U .S . at 8 9 -9 0 ); W o lf v. A sh c ro

ft , 297 F. 3d 305, 309 (3d C i r. 20 0 2 ); B ier egu v. R eno , 5 9 F

. 3 d 1 4 4 5 , 1 4 5 8 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ); Mann v. R eynolds , 4 6 F

. 3 d 1 0 5 5 , 1 0 6 0 -61 (10 th C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ). O urdeci s i on i n B i er egu is in stru c tiv e o n th is p o in t. W hi l e the def

endantadmi ni s t r at or s i n B i er egu ar gued onl yt hat th e ir o p e n in g o f

leg a l m a il i n th e a b s e n c e o f th e in m a te addr es s ee di d notvi ol at e the C ons t i tut i on, t he C our t , i n t he cou rs e of reversi ng su m m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or of t ho se defe ndant s , nece s s ar i l y addr es s ed w hethert he l egal m ai l pol i cy w as e n fo rce ab le un d er Turne r . B i er egu , 5 9 F. 3 d a t1 4 5 6

- 5 8. T he C our tfound thatno r easo nabl e conne ct i on had bee n d e m o n stra ted b e tw e e n th e ir c o n d u c t an d in stitu tio n a l se c u rity “on the s uppos i t i on t hat corr es pondence m ay cont ai n pl ans for es cape or i nci t e vi ol ence . ” I d. at1457. W e r ecogni zed thatt he s t at e had a “s ubs t ant i al i nt er es t ” i n i ns t i tut i onal s ecur i t ybut concl uded that , on the s t at e of the r ecor d, “t o s ugges tt hat r epea t edl yopeni ng i ncomi ng cour t m ai l out s i de t he pr es ence of a n in m a te a d v a n c e s a leg iti m a te in ter e st in in stitu tio n a l se c u rity

. . . w oul d overr eac h. ” I d. I n ot herw or ds , w hi l e i tw as t rue that

### Bo th si des i n both c as es agre e up on the fact s hereearl ie r 7 

### rep o rted co n cern in g th e anthraxletters. Seep ag e _

_ _ , in fra . A s e ri e s o f su ch l e tt e r s wa s pos t e d i n Oc t obe r of 2001, four

of whi c h we r e pr oc e s s e d by the m a i l pr oc e s s i ng c e nt e r in 20 l egal m ai l conce i vabl y m i ght cont ai n s uch pl ans and the openi ng o f it m ig h t co n c e iv a b lyth w a rt th o se p lan s, th e risk a lleg e d ly add res sed w as to o i nsub st anti al t o just i fyi ncu rs i on on F i rs t A m end m ent i nter est s. T her e i s no di s put e her e aboutthe exi s t ence of the r e g u l a t i o n a n d t h e d e f

e n d a n t s ’ c o n d u c t i mp l e me n t i n g i t
. As we h a v e e x p lain e d , b a se d u p o n th a t re g u latio n a n d c o n d u c t, pl ai nt i ffs have e s t abl i s hed thatt he def endant s have i n fr i nged upon t hei rFi r s tA m endment pr ot ect ed i nt er es ti n bei ng pr es ent w h en l egal m ai l addr es s ed t o them i s opened. I tfol l ow s t hat d e f e n d a n ts’ p ra c tice c a n n o t p a ss c o n stitu tio n a l m u ste r u n les s it can s at i s fyt he Turne rt est s. In o rd e r to sa tisf

y th e ir b u rd e n a t th e f

irst Turne rs t ep, t he defe n d a n ta d mi n i s t r a t o r s h a v e i d e n t i f i e d a s t h e r e l e v a nt penol ogi cal i nt er es tt hei ri nt er es ti n pr ot ect i ng t he s afe t yand se c u rityo f N e w Je rse y ’s p riso n s. T h e d e f e n d a n ts p u t f

o rth o n ly o n e m e a n s b y w h ich th e p o licy m ig h t se rv e th a t in te r e s t: th ro u g h a re d u c tio n in th e risk o f a n th ra x c o n tam in a tio n in pri sons. In order t o est abli sh t hat t here i s a non -negl i gibl e ri sk o f a n th ra x c o n tam in a tio n th a t th e p o licyc o u ld b e th o u g h t to re d u c e , the d e f

e n d a n ts re lyso lelyo n th e g e n e ra lly k n o w n f a c ts reg ard ing the e v en ts of S ep tem b er 1 1 , 2 0 0 1 , an d the lett ers pos t ed i n O ct oberof 2001 conta i ni ng anthr ax s por es . T hey 7

### Hamil to n, NJ. Five people die d. Th er e wer e five c on firm ed i nfe c t i ons i n Ne w J e r s e y . No e vi de nc e ha s beentende r e d, howe ve r , r e gar di ng the a ddr e s s e e s of thos e l e tt e r s , the r e s ul t s of the e nsu in g i nve s t i gat i on, or any othe r i nform at i on r e gar di ng th e m. 21 have t ender ed no ot her evi dence fort he purpos e of e s t abl i s hi ng t he exi s t ence of a s i gni fi cant r i s k of anthr ax cont ami nat i on and t h u s a r e a s o n a b l e c o n n e c t i o n b e t wee n t h e s e p r a c t i c e s a n d t he s a f e ty an d s e c u ri ty o f

th e irp ri s o n s . T he D i str i ctC our ti n A l l ah , vi ew i ng t he ques t i on p rese n ted u n d er Turne r ’ s fi r s t s t ep fr om t he per s pect i ve o f the dat e of it s deci s i on i n O ct oberof 2004, found “thatt her e i s no r eas onabl e conne ct i on betw een the Legal M ai l P o li cyand the D ef en d a n ts’ asse rt ed interest. ” A p p . B row n at R a1 2 3

. It expl ai ned: D e f e n d a n ts h a v e o f

f e re d n o e v id e n c e th a t th e re is a n e lev a ted risk o f

a n th ra x c o n tam in a tio n in pr i s ons r es ul t i ng fr om the eve nt s of Sept ember 1 1 , 2 0 0 1 , w h ich p rom p ted D iFra n ce sco ’s exec ut i ve or der

. N orhave D efe ndant s ci t ed any e v id e n c e o f

a ttem p ts to e x p o se p riso n e rs to anthr ax i n t he t hr ee y ear s s i nce the i nci denti n t he H ami l t on pos t al fac i l i t y . Si nce thatt i m e, i nves t i gat i ons conduct ed bythe C ent erfor D i s ease C o n tr o l and P rev en ti o n (th e “ C D C ”) have found t hat t he act ual r i s k of a nt hr ax cont ami nat i on in thi s countr yi s qui t e s m al l , and22 gui del i nes s etfor th byt he C D C and the St at e of N e w Je rse yp ro v id e a s e n sib le a p p ro a c h to deali ng w i t h suspici ou s packa ges. Id

. T he D i s t r i ctC our ti n Jones , vi ew i ng the quest i on p rese n ted u n d er Turne r ’ s fi r s ts t ep fr om t he t i m e per s pect i ve of th e a d o p tio n o f

th e re g u latio n , fo u n d “ th a t th e r e v is e d m a il po l i cy has a rat i on al rel at i on t o it s st at ed an d legi t i m at e pu rpose o f m aintaini ng pr i s on s afe t yand s ecur i t y . ” I d. at R a1 1 1

. It expl ai ned: A fter S ep tem b er 1 1 , 2 0 0 1 , p ri so n o ff ici als w ere fac ed w i t h t he veryr eal and dange r ous pr os pect o f re ce iving p ri so n er m ail co n tai n ing A n thrax

. In s uch a c l o se-quar t er ed envi r onm entas a pr i s on, th e p o ten tial d a n g e r to in m a te s a n d sta f f a lik e is obvi ous . I f a pr i s onerw er e t o open a c o n tam in a ted e n v e lo p e in h is c e ll, n o t o n lyw o u ld th e p riso n e r a n d m a il ca rrie r lik e lyb e e x p o se d to the cont ami nant , t he pr i s oner ’ s cel l m at e and nei ghbor s , as w el l as hi s ent i r e pr i s on w ing, w o u ld b e a t r is k o f

e x p o su re . T h e re v ise d m a il pol i cys eeks t o l es s en the r i s k of A n t hr ax expos ur e t o pr i s oner s and pr i s on s t aff byopeni ng i ncomi ng m ai l in a s ecur e envi r onm enti n w hi ch a n y c o n tam in a tio n w o u ld b e im m e d iate ly cont ai ned. I d.

### Whi l e the y havepl aye d n o rol e i n o ur de c i s i on , e xtr a- 8 

### r e c or d m at e ri a l s t o whi c h pl a i nti ffs and am ic ir e fe r us , s om e of wh ic h ar e date d after

the Allah Cour

t ’ s Oc t obe r

2004 i njunc t i on, s upport

i t s s oundne s s t oday . Si nc e Oc t obe r of 2004, th e P o sta l S e rv ice h as im p lem enteda series o f

m easures to redu ce th e risko f

an th r axco ntamin atio nthro u g hth e m ail. Th es e m ea sure s have i ncluded the in st al lati onof bioh az ard d e t e c t i o ns ys t e m s i na l l n i n e p r o c e s s i n g c e nt e r s i nN e wJ e r s e y. Th e Cente rs fo r Dis ea seCo ntrol andPreventi ones ti m at es an i n d i v i du a l ’ s c urr e nt

ri s ko f c o ntr a c t i n g anthr ax t o b e r o u g h l y 1 in3 0 0 millio ninanav erag e year. See Ctr s . for Di s e a s e Contr ol & P rev e n tio n , A n t h r a x Q & A : R isk , 23 W e bel i eve thata pr i s on adm i ni s t r at orcompel l ed t o act i m m edi at el yaft erSep tem ber11t h and O ct oberof 2001 m i ght reas on ablyhav e con cl ud ed t hat t he ri sk of a n an t hrax t err ori sm a t t a c k o n a p r i s o n w a s s u f f i c i e n t l y u n q u a n t i f

i a b l e t o j u s t i f

y a t empora r y , emer gencym eas ur e i nvol vi ng t he openi ng of a p ri so n er’s leg al m ail in h is a b sen ce . W e c o n clud e, ho w ev er, t hatw e s houl d r evi ew t he i nj un cti on ent er ed byt he D i s t r i ct C our ti n A l l ah bas ed on the s t at e of t he re cor d i n t hatcas e att he t i m e i t w as ent er ed m or e t han t hr ee y ear s aft erSept ember11t h. See U ni t ed St at es v. C ar ol ene Produc t s C o. , 304 U

. S. 144, 153 ( 1938) ( “[T] he cons t i tut i onal i t yof a s t atut e pre di cat ed upon the exi s t enc e of a pa r t i cul ars t at e of f act s m aybe cha l l enged by sh o w ing to the co u rtthat tho se f ac ts ha v e c ea sed to ex ist

. ”); Sc h u m a c h e rv . Nix , 9 6 5 F

. 2 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 7 1 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 2 ). R evi ew i ng i tfr om t hatper s pect i ve w e, t oo, fi nd t hatt her e i s “no r eas o n a b l e c o n n e c t i o n b e t wee n t h e Le g a l M a i l Po l i c ya n d t he defe ndant s ’ as s er t ed i nt er es t
. ” A pp. B r ow n atR A 123. 8

### http://www .bt. cdc. go v/agent/ anthrax/faq/ri sk.a sp (l as t vis it ed Ju ly 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 ). B y

w ay o f co m p ariso n , o n e is tw o tim es less l i ke l y t o c ontr a c t anthr ax i n agi ve n ye ar than t o wi n the gr and priz e i n the Mu lti- Stat e L otte ry Associ ation’s P ow er ballgam e. See T h eMu lti

- St at e Lott e ry As s oc i at i on, P o w erb a ll– Prize sand Odds , h ttp ://w w w. powe rba l l

. c om/powe rba l l /pb_pr i z e s . a sp ( r e port i ng odds of gr and pri ze t o be r oughl y 1 i n 146 mi l l i on) (l as t vis it ed July

31 , 200 6). 24 A teverys t ep i n t he s ugges ted log i cal pr ogr es s i on fr om t he e v e n t s o f

Se p t e mbe ra n d Oct o b e r2 0 0 1 t o t h e n e e d f or pr ot ect i on of pr i s ons agai ns tanthr ax cont ami nat i on i n O ct ober 2 0 0 4 , co m m o n se n se w o u ld n o t as sis t th e re sp o n sib le a d m in istra to r. H e o r sh e , w ith o u t a d d iti o n a l in f o rm a tio n , co u ld n o t re a so n a b lytak e e a c h lo g ica l ste p in d e c id in g w h e th e r to cont i nue t o t r ead upon i nm at es ’ Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s . For exampl e, i ti s conce i vabl e, w e s uppo se, th at t her e mayhave been a connec t i on betw een t he event s of Sept ember11t h and the an thr ax l et t er s of O ct ober2001, butcomm on s ens e does not al one af for d a r eas onabl e bas i s for bel i evi ng t hatt her e w as , and a p riso n a d m in istra to r in th e a b se n c e o f su b sta n tial e v id e n c e to s o s ugges tcoul d not t hr ee y ear s l at er r eas onabl y r el yupon s uch a conne ct i on i n deci di ng w hether t o cont i nue t he am ended l egal ma i l p o l i c yu n t i l t he e nd o f t h e s t a t e o f

e me r g e n c y . Th e s a me can be s ai d fort he al l eged c onnect i on betw ee n a li m i t ed but undi s cl os ed numberof anthr ax l et t er s pos t ed i n O ct oberof 2001 byan unknow n per s on orper s ons t o undi s cl os ed pl ace s and the exi s t ence t hr ee y ear s l at erof a p erso n m ot i vat ed and w i t h t he m eans t o at t ack a pr i s on w i t h anthr ax. Fi nal l y , even i f an admi ni s t r at orcoul d r eas onabl yconcl ude i n O ct ober of 2004 that25 t her e w as a non- de m i nim is r i s k of an a nt hr ax att ack on N ew Jerse yp ri so n s, co m m o n sen se, w ith o u t m o re, w o u ld n o t aff o rd a r eas onabl e basi s forbel i evi ng t hatt hatr i s k w oul d be m at eri al l yreduced byop ening l et t ers from l aw y ers and cou rt s. I n rul i ng t hat t he s t at e had fa i l ed t o demonst r at e a “ val i d, r at i onal connec t i on” betw een t he l egal m ai l pol i cyand a l egi t i m at e governm ent al i nt er es t , t he A l l ah C our tdi d nots econd gues s N ew J er s eypr i s on admi ni s t r at or s ’ j udgm entw i t h r es pect to adm i ni s t r at i ve bur dens ori nm at e beha vi or , oranyot her m at t erw i t hi n t hei r s peci al expert i s e. T he pr obl em i taddr es s ed w as one invo l ving th e asses sm ent of t he ri sk of a t err ori st anthr ax att ack o n N ew Jer sey ’s pri sons i n the Fall of 200 4. Y es, s uch an a t t ack i s co n cei vabl e, butt hatC our tw oul d have be en negl ect ful of i t s r esp o ns i bi l i t yi f i thad s anct i oned the el i m i nat i on of the cons t i tut i onal r i ghtw e r ecogni zed i n B i er egu i n the absence o f so m e rat i on al basi s for bel i eving t here w as a n o n -n e g lig ib le r is k o f

su c h a n a ttac k . S tate d o th e rw ise , w h ile th e h e a lth a n d sa f

e ty o f in m a tes a n d sta f

f a re leg iti m a te penol ogi cal i nt er es t s , i f ther e i s no inf o r m at i on s ugges t i ng a s ig n if ica n t risk o f

a n a n th ra x a ttac k , the re is n o re a so n a b le connec t i on betw een thos e i nt er ests and the pol i cyof openi ng l e g a l m a i l i n t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e i n m a t e a d d r e s s e e . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e hol d t hat t he def

endant s have notm ett hei rbur den undert he fi r s ts t ep of Turne rand proc eed no fur t heri n ourr evi ew of the i nj unct i on i n t he A l l ah C o u rt. A lth o u g h o n lytw o , rath e r th a n th re e , m a ter ially unevent ful y ear s had pas s ed at t he t i m e of the Jones C o u rt ’s deci s i on t o r efus e i nj unct i ve r el i ef, ouranal y s i s of the i s s ues present ed b yJones’ a p p e al paral l el s the an al y si s w e hav e j ust26 conduct ed i n A l l ah and r eac hes t he s ame concl us i on. T he defe ndant s i n Jones , l i ke thos e i n A l l ah , h a v e f a iled to m e e t th e ir b u rde n undert he fi r s ts t ep of Turne r . A ccordi ng l y , w e w i ll r ever s e the j udgm entof the Jones Cou r t o n J o n e s ’ c l a i m for i nj unct i ve r el i ef a nd w i l l r emand w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o en teran i nj unct i on cons i s t entw i t h t he A l l ah i nj unct i on. III

. St at e off i ci al s ar e ent i tl ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t yfr om d a m a g e liab ili tyif

th e ir c o n d u c t “d o e s n o t v io late c lea rly es t abl i s hed s t atut or yorcons t i tut i onal r i ght s of w hi ch a r eas onabl e per s on w oul d have know n. ” H a rlo w v . F itzg e ra ld , 457 U

. S. 800, 818 ( 1982)

. “Thi s i nqui r y. . . m us tbe undert aken i n l i ght of t he spec i fi c cont extof the ca s e. ” Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , 533 U .S . 1 9 4 , 2 0 1 (2 0 0 1 ). B i er egu estab li sh ed as a g en era l m a tter th at prison ers have a Fi r s t A m endment pr ot ect ed i nt er es t i n bei ng p r es ent w hen thei rl egal m ai l i s opened. 59 F

. 3 d at1458. B utas t he Supr eme C our temp h asi zed i n Sauci er , “ th a t is n o t e n o u g h .” 5 3 3 U .S . at 2 0 2 . “T h e c o n to u rs o f th e rig h t m u st b e su f f icie n tly c lea r th a t a r e a so n a b le o f f icia l w o u ld u n d e rsta n d th a t w h a t h e is doi ng vi ol at es t hatr i ght

. ” I d. ( quot i ng A nders on v. C r ei ght on , 4 8 3 U .S

. 6 3 5 , 6 4 0 (1 9 8 7 )). F o r tw o re a so n s, w e b e liev e it cannotbe s ai d w i t h confi dence tha tr eas onabl e pr i s on adm ini s t r at or s i n t he def endant s ’ pos i t i on w oul d have r eal i zed t hatt heyw er e vi ol at i ng t he t eac hi ngs of B i er egu . F irst, as w e h a v e e x p lain e d , p riso n a d m in istra to rs in defe nd ants ’ posi t i on w ou l d n ot h ave b een v i olat i ng i nm at es’27 ri gh t s if theyreas on ablybeli eved t heyw ere act i ng i n the i nter est of i nm at e and s t aff

h eal t h and s afe t y . A s w e have fur t her expl ai ned, t he Turne rt e s ti s h i g h l y f a c t s e n s i t i v e a n d , a tt h e t i me th e c h a llen g e d re g u latio n w a s a d o p ted , th e re w a s n o g u id a n c e in our cas e l aw r egar di ng t he appl i cat i on of B i er egu and Turne rin th e c o n tex t o f th e sp e c ial c irc u m sta n c e s e n c o u n ter e d in th e F a ll of 2001. W i t houtbei ng abl e t o det erm i ne w hethert he O ct ober 2 0 0 1 s e ri e s o f

a n th ra x le tte rs h a d e n d e d o r w a s o n -g o in g , a r eas onabl e admi ni s t r at orm i ghtw el l have unde r s t oo d the l egal m ai l po l i cyt o b e con si st ent w i t h those cases. S e c o n d , e v e n a ta l a t e rp o i n ti n t i me wh e n i tb e c a me appar entt hatt her e w as no s i gni fi cant, on- goi ng r i s k fr om anthr ax att ack, w e bel i eve a rea s onabl e pr i s on admi ni s t r at or eval uat i ng w hethert he l egal m ai l p o li cy s houl d be cont i nued m ig h t w e ll h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t B i er egu w as no l ongers ound l aw . A s pr evi ous l y not ed, at t hat poi ntw e had de cl ar ed w i t hout r es ervat i on i n O l iver v

. F auver , 1 1 8 F

. 3 d 1 7 5 , 1 7 8 (3d C ir

. 1997) , t hat t he Supr eme Court had “ef fec t i vel yo v errul ed B i er egu . ” W hi l e w e her e hol d t hatt hi s w as nott rue w i t h r es pect t o t he Fi r s tA m endment aspect s of B i er egu , i n t he abs ence of author i t ys ugges t i ng ot herw i s e, w e ca nnotfi nd a pr i s on admi ni s t r at ort o have be en unr eas onabl e i n t aki ng ours t at ement i n O l i veratfac e val ue. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m t he rul i ng of bot h t he A l l ah C our tand the Jones C o u rt th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts a re e n tit led to qu al i fi ed im m un i t yw i t h respectt o p l ai nti ffs’ dam age clai m s. I V.28 T he judgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our ti n A l l ah w i l l be aff i r m ed. T he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our ti n Jones w i l l be aff i r m ed i n al l r es pect s ot herthan the deni al o f re l i ef on pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m for an i nj unct i on. I t s deni al of i nj unct i ve r el i ef w ill b e re v e rse d a n d th is m a tter w ill b e re m a n d e d w ith in stru c tio n s to e n ter a n in ju n c tio n c o n sis ten t w ith th a t en ter e d in A l l ah.