Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2018/FL/amicus-curiae-brief-us-supreme-court-r-street-institute-et-al/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:26:43+00:00

Document:
supervised by a member of the D.C. Bar.
Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v.
Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y.
West Virginia Board of Education v.
the First Amendment, 25 Wm. & Mary L.
and Practice, 36 Colum. Hum. Rts. L.
Engagement, 41 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev.
Legal News, Aug. 15, 2004, https://bit.
Parental Incarceration, 30 Fordham Urb.
justice reform, free speech, and limited government.
from learning about their constitutional rights.
studies, and the annual Cato Supreme Court Review.
on its websites, and by issuing policy research reports.
Charlottesville, Virginia. Founded in 1982 by John W.
public about constitutional and human rights issues.
government to impose arbitrary and capricious restrictions on the First Amendment rights of prisoners.
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 36 (2002) (quoting Pell v.
rehabilitation, such as offering substance abuse treatment, education programs, and chaplaincy services.
through “[t]he arbitrary power of administration”).
returning to productive citizenship upon release.
41 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 369, 387 (2006).
Fact: Prison, Speech, and Scrutiny, 84 Geo. Wash.
L. Rev. 972, 975 (2016).
censorship of Prison Legal News is not one of them.
of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Bull. No.
States, 2015, at 17, (2016).
Policy Initiative (Jan. 25, 2017), https://bit.ly/2kxbnxV.
Incarceration, 30 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1671 (2001).
Jeffrey D. Morenoff & David J. Harding, Incarceration, Prisoner Reentry, and Communities, 40 Ann. Rev.
than the general population. See Nat’l Ctr. for Educ.
programs while incarcerated are less likely to reoffend.
both inside and outside of a correctional setting.” Id.
learning, and social action.” Feierman, supra, at 387.
lawsuit that will be dismissed for procedural errors.
1996 (AEDPA) created a one-year statute of limitations for habeas petitions filed by State prisoners.
forever potential review of constitutional violations.
result in dismissal. See Feierman, supra, at 380.
that might mitigate these obstacles to self-advocacy.
forms for these books appear in issues of Prison Legal News.
allowing a return to productive citizenship upon release.
thus a cost-free way to promote the rehabilitation process and encourage prisoners’ reintegration into society.
lost sight of this legitimate penological objective.
Defined By the Whims of the Government.
(quoting James Madison, 1 Annals of Cong. 457).
Amendment: The Deference to Authority, 11 First Am.
the protections of the Constitution.” Turner, 482 U.S.
those on the ‘inside.’” Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S.
to support the regulation . . . [was] suspect.” 482 U.S.
succeed.” Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521, 535 (2006).
careful and independent review of prison regulations.
to second-guess the decisions of the real wardens,” Pet.
to determine “if a law be in opposition to the constitution.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177–78 (1803).
merely because they claim some expertise.
mildest supervision over men’s affairs.
when liberty is infringed.” Id. at 640.
matters of professional judgment.” See Beard, 548 U.S.
Judiciary’s proper role in interpreting federal statutes.”); Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S.
(“[D]eference does not imply abandonment or abdication of judicial review.”).
matters involving prisoner’s rights, see Pell, 417 U.S.
in this case for at least three reasons.
ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace” by burdening disfavored speech. Simon & Schuster, Inc. v.
Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S.
prison officials should play in its analysis. See Pet. App. 83–84.
The Court of Appeals did not address the issue.
105, 116 (1991); see also New York Times Co., 403 U.S.
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 716–17 (1931).
& Tribune Co. v. Minn. Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U.S.
doing so is mere pretext.
the Rule to those publications at the margins.
197 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring).
or five out of one hundred, one thousand.
that a void-for-vagueness challenge would address.
censors’ subjective views.” Id.; see also Sessions v.
considered the issue to be waived, id. at 15 n.8.
because “circumstances vary from state to state,” id.
might be relevant to the regulation at issue. See id.
result. See id. at 60.
Florida’s is not a minor detail to be brushed aside.
which merits this Court’s review.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.