Opinion ID: 221238
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Existence of a Valid, Rational Connection Between the Regulation and Its Objective

Text: We begin with the first of the Turner factors, which acts as a threshold matter regardless which way it cuts. Singer, 593 F.3d at 534. As Justice O'Connor wrote in Turner and Judge Tinder cited in Singer, [A] regulation cannot be sustained where the logical connection between the regulation and the asserted goal is so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational. Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90, 107 S.Ct. 2254. The plaintiffs' argument on this point seems to be that the regulation in question is unnecessary rather than remote. As argued at page 3 of their reply brief, The fraud concern that gave rise to the ban ... is completely addressed by safeguards currently in place. We will address their argument that the restriction on advertising for pen-pals is gratuitous in our discussion of the last Turner factor, which deals with the existence or absence of a ready alternative to the contested regulation. For now it suffices to say that the plaintiffs have not directly challenged the regulation as being remote or arbitrary. A prohibition on advertising for pen-pals relates fairly directly to the goal of preventing fraud since it cuts off the inmates' access to potential victims. The plaintiffs have not raised any issue of material fact on this point. Therefore, summary judgment was appropriate with respect to the first factor.