Opinion ID: 2827553
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether a valid, rational connection exists

Text: between the regulation and a legitimate government interest behind the rule; (2) whether there are alternative means of exercising the right in question; (3) what impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right would have on guards, other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources; and (4) what easy alternatives exist to the regulation because, although the regulation need not satisfy a least restrictive alternatives test, the existence of obvious 12 No. 14-2910 alternatives may be evidence that the regulation is not reasonable.[22] 22 Although the language used by the Supreme Court in setting forth the reasonableness test appears similar to the “rational-basis test” used in other contexts, see Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 (1979) (noting “that the section is valid if it is rationally related to furthering a legitimate state interest” (internal quotation marks omitted)), the “reasonableness standard” applied in this context is more demanding, see Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 414 (“We adopt the Turner standard in this case with confidence that, as petitioners here have asserted, a reasonableness standard is not toothless.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The test for whether a prison regulation impermissibly burdens a prisoner’s constitutional rights requires a more searching inquiry into the justifications supporting the regulation. Compare Turner, 482 U.S. at 97–98 (noting that the regulation “represents an exaggerated response to such security objectives”), with FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 315 (1993) (noting that, under traditional rational-basis review, “those attacking the rationality of the legislative classification have the burden to negative every conceivable basis which might support it” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The court also must determine if there are alternative means of accommodating the prisoner’s rights. See Turner, 482 U.S. at 90– 91; see also O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 349 n.2 (1987) (noting that “the presence or absence of alternative accommodations of prisoners’ rights is properly considered a factor in the reasonableness analysis rather than a basis for heightened scrutiny”). We also recognize, however, that the reasonableness “test is less restrictive than that ordinarily applied to infringements on constitutional rights in consideration of the need to give appropriate deference to prison officials, avoiding unnecessary judicial intrusion into security problems and other prison concerns.” Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 719 (7th Cir. 2011); accord Spavone v. New York State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 719 F.3d 127, 136 (2d Cir. 2013) (noting that “[t]he standard adopted by the Supreme Court was a compromise between the strict scrutiny standard that usually would apply to such constitutional claims and the inordinately (continued…) No. 14-2910 13 Shimer v. Washington, 100 F.3d 506, 509 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing Turner, 482 U.S. at 89–90); accord Van Den Bosch v. Raemisch, 658 F.3d 778, 785 (7th Cir. 2011). Although all four factors are important, “the first one can act as a threshold factor regardless which way it cuts.” Singer v. Raemisch, 593 F.3d 529, 534 (7th Cir. 2010). “[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. Although “the burden of persuasion is on the prisoner to disprove the validity of a regulation,” prison officials “must still articulate their legitimate governmental interest in the regulation” and provide some evidence supporting their concern. Van Den Bosch, 658 F.3d at 786; accord Mays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643, 647 (7th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (“Once the prison gave its explanation for denying the supplements, the burden shifted to Mays to present evidence to call that explanation into question.”); Shimer, 100 F.3d at 509 (“The prison administration must proffer some evidence to support its restriction of prison guards’ constitutional rights.”); see also Beerheide v. Suthers, 286 F.3d 1179, 1189 (10th Cir. 2002) (“In order to warrant deference, prison officials must present credible evidence to support their stated penological goals.” (emphasis in original)). “The prison administration cannot avoid court scrutiny by reflexive, rote assertions.” Shimer, 100 F.3d at 510 (internal quotation marks omitted). At the same time, we recognize that “[w]e must accord substantial (…continued) difficult undertaking of running a prison” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 14 No. 14-2910 deference to the professional judgment of prison administrators, who bear a significant responsibility for defining the legitimate goals of a corrections system and for determining the most appropriate means to accomplish them.” Singer, 593 F.3d at 534 (internal quotation marks omitted).