Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/pln-us-supreme-court-amicus-brief-in-banks-v-beard-pennsylvania-control-unit-ban-on-publications-case/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:42:22+00:00

Document:
INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE!
of information and communication in the prison context.
to light possible abuse or inhumane conditions in prisons.
in prison but may return to society.
curiae are set forth in the Appendix.
of Pennsylvania's Long Term Segregation Unit ("LTSU").
news on legal and other developments affecting prisoners).
destroyed or otherwise disposed of. Jt App 159.
(opinion of Burger, C,J., announcing judgment of the Court).
right to enter governmental institutions.
and image recording devices and can restrict media tours).
speech rights are, in this manner, "inextricably meshed."
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396,409 (1974).
events and other developments in the outside world. See id.
one visit per month with immediate family members).
means of communicating with these inmates.
those who read the same article in a publication.
by presenting views likely to generate responsive expression.
up liberties "inconsistent with proper incarceration,"
as well as the interests of the media and the public.
Kimberlin v. Us. Dep't of Justice, 318 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir.
subscription non-profit organization mail) and Allen v.
true to its promise that the Turner standard "is not toothless,"
sources... [, a task] essential to the welfare of the public."
Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1,20 (1945).
remaining public property." See id. at 678-79.
scrutiny under the First Amendment. See, e.g., Adderly v.
government can restrict speech in whatever way it likes."
(1983); quotation marks, alterations, and ellipsis omitted).
Legal De! & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 806 (1985).
forth guidelines for their application in the prison context.
applicable standard of review. See, e.g., United States v.
development since a decade prior).
prison speech cases with the rest of "forum based" doctrine.
school mail systems, see Perry, 460 U.S. 37.
risks and administrative costs in many different contexts.
forms of solicitation and expression.").
"total ban" imposed inside the terminal buildings. Id. at 692.
property for the several uses to which it has been put." Id.
should yield the same result.
force of First Amendment law. See, e.g., Grosjean v.
heightened First Amendment scrutiny." Turner Broad.
System, Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm 'n, 512 US.
segregation since 1973); see also !)hoats v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140 (3d Cir.
policy thus raises the specter of a lifetime publication ban.
Pennsylvania has here, the constitutional concerns multiply.
Free Speech guarantee." !d.; cf Legal Services Corp. v.
were changed" by unconstitutional restrictions).
themselves and to rehabilitate in the best sense of the word").
holding a powerful government institution accountable.
also when "an entire class of viewpoints" is disfavored.
viewpoint neutral because they do exactly that.
prohibiting the materials of another.
media. Decisions such as United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
exercise their right to access courts.
infringe on constitutional rights. See, e.g., Overton v.
interests." Turner, 482 U.S. at 89.
"'exaggerated response' to prison concerns." !d. at 89-91.
these poles. Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 414.
examination of all concerns captured by the four factors.
prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution."
Turner, 482 U.S. at 84.
information and ideas." Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S.
Amendment interest in access to prisoners." !d. at 408.
First Amendment rights to send and receive publications.
Turner, 482 U.S. at 89.
Consideration of four factors is relevant to the determination.
prison policy and the penological goal. E.g., Jacklovich v.
activity."); Amatel v. Reno, 156 F.3d 192, 191-201 (D.C. Cir.
F.3d 1276 (9th Cir. 1995).
speech," after considering first factor).
related to that objective"? Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 414.
(quoting Pel!, 417 U.S. at 823); Bel! v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.
invocation of "security" and "order."
penological goals actually advanced by prison officials.
able to imagine '''plausible reasons' for Congress' action").
"common sense." Turner, 482 U.S. 97-98.
"specific facts or explanation to support its argument,"
empirical proof of the efficacy of its methods. Pet. Brief 23.
fires, or can be used as crude tools to catapult feces at the guards."
Banks, 399 F.3d at 138.
beyond the severity of less restrictive segregation levels.
is a legitimate "tool of prison administration." McKune v.
smuggling and drug use in prison are intractable problems,"
largely because their exercise would be highly valued.
effect, common sense requires a healthy dose of skepticism.
"exaggerated response" to perceived prison needs.
communication" are more likely to be constitutional).
the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
restrictive rule against admission of incoming publications"
might well "run afoul of the second Turner factor").
factors." Banks, 399 F.3d at 149.
information and communications from the outside world."
Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners'Labor Union, 433 U.S.
different from the ones upheld in Overton, Pell, and Jones.
heavily in favor of invalidating the restrictions.
of prison resources generally." Turner, 482 U.S. at 90.
"ripple effect" on the rest of the prison population and staff.
Banks, 399 F.3d at 146-48.
prison's limited resources for preserving institutional order."
not excessively burdensome to prison administrators.
infringing regulation is likely to be an exaggerated response.
between Levels 1 and 2 suffice to satisfy prison goals.
coverage of detention facility litigation of any publication.
of prisoners in segregated control units.
Information Act litigation since 1970.
publisher members across the United States and Canada.
disseminate and receive ideas and information.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.