Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2018/FL/amicus-curiae-brief-us-supreme-court-law-professors/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:16:37+00:00

Document:
under Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
of religion under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.
and counsel for both parties received timely notice of amici’s intent to file this brief.
said they disagree with the national consensus and believe the restriction is necessary for prison security.
that there was no increase in security risks or incidents when prisoners received the publication.
planning, and the commitment of resources.” 482 U.S.
show more than a formalistic logical connection between a regulation and a penological objective.”).
these results as a license to give unrestrained deference to prison officials.
what the First Amendment is intended to prohibit.
that FDOC stands alone amongst its peers in restricting access to Prison Legal News due to its advertising.
and corrupt corrections officials who tarnish the work of scrupulous prison administrators.
CENSORSHIP DECISIONS BY PRISON OFFICIALS.
that prison officials may find bothersome. Pet. 4-5.
protected and that officials may not hide impermissible justifications behind claims of security.
Such scrutiny is also necessary to ensure that incarceration does not result in unjustifiable infringement of a variety of important constitutional rights.
the Turner standard. Id. at 412-13.
adopting a reasonableness standard. Abbott, 490 U.S.
Abbott, 490 U.S. at 414 (quotation marks omitted).
more recently in Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006).
regulation and a penological objective.” Id. at 535 (plurality opinion).
constitutional rights. Johnson v. California, 543 U.S.
toothless.’”) (quoting Abbott, 490 U.S. at 414).
Far, Resulting In Inconsistent Results.
Turner, resulting in ineffective review of prison regulations and almost absolute deference to officials’ penological justifications. This requires this Court’s intervention to correct.
restrictions on speech, as catalogued in David M.
with even a single concerning advertisement. Pet. 2829.
the prison had ample means to enforce its rules. Pet.
14. And, in some instances, FDOC created limited exceptions permitting the underlying conduct. Pet. 22.
that Turner held to be a threat to the First Amendment, even within prison walls.
on the basis of viewpoint or content.
logical connection between the regulation and the asserted goal is so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.”).
prison systems, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons,” are highly relevant to the Turner analysis.
could ban any publications that “might enable [prisoners] to break prison rules,” and that the “rules certainly help advance [safety] interests.” Pet. App. 9, 43.
behavior, all while restricting prisoners from information related to enforcing their constitutional rights.
such a feeble standard within prison walls.
officials justified their policy under two rationales. Id.
not restrict other paper, even though the paper was indistinguishable with regards to flammability. Ibid.
which is contrary to Turner.
prisoner has been transferred to another facility. Ibid.
the prison library, the prison rejected the prisoner’s order simply by writing “DRUGS” on a standard form.
on the information contained therein. Id. at 636-37.
“arbitrary or irrational.” 238 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir.
without requiring the defendants to present counterevidence. 683 F.3d 201, 215-20 (5th Cir. 2012).
not run afoul of Turner.
Livingston, 683 F.3d at 218.
See Shapiro, supra, at 988-1005.
against such discrimination in other fields that ordinarily enjoy less robust First Amendment protection.
“state-sponsored effort at mind control”).
U.S. 126, 133-36 (2003); Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S.
aptly, publisher-to-prisoner correspondence. 482 U.S.
concerns for prison safety and security.
practice and out of step with recent jurisprudence.
United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 521 (1995).
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C.
to all state and federal action that substantially burdens religious exercise,5 including prison operations.
residing in or confined to an institution . . .
is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved.” 416 U.S. at 413.
Department of Justice under RLUIPA).
involved.” 416 U.S. at 413.
has allowed, in several important respects.
seriously it would manifest, and whether it has happened in other systems that did not take similar censorship steps.
S. Ct. at 866; Martinez, 416 U.S. at 414 n.14.
safeguard against invidious discrimination masquerading as a sweeping response to a legitimate problem.
assertions regarding the extent of predicted harms.
on the institution to justify its restrictions on publishers’ and prisoners’ First Amendment rights.

References: v. 
 § 2000
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.