Document: 482 U.S. 78 107 S.Ct. 2254 96 L.Ed.2d 64 William R. TURNER, et al., Petitionersv.Leonard SAFLEY, al. No. 85-1384. Argued Jan. 13, 1987. Decided June 1, Syllabus Respondent inmates brought a class action challenging two regulations promulgated by the Missouri Division of Corrections. The first permits correspondence between immediate family members who are at different institutions within Division's jurisdiction, and "concerning legal matters," but allows other inmate only if each inmate's classification/treatment team deems it in best interests parties. second regulation an to marry with prison superintendent's permission, which can be given when there "compelling reasons" do so. Testimony indicated that generally pregnancy or birth illegitimate child would considered "compelling." Federal District Court found both unconstitutional, Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. lower courts erred ruling Procunier v. Martinez, 416 396, 94 1800, 40 224 (1974), its progeny require application strict scrutiny standard review for resolving respondents' constitutional complaints. Rather, those cases indicate lesser is appropriate whereby inquiry made into whether impinges on inmates' rights "reasonably related" legitimate penological interests. In determining reasonableness, relevant factors include (a) "valid, rational connection" neutral governmental interest put forward justify it, connection cannot so remote as render arbitrary irrational; (b) alternative means exercising asserted right remain open inmates, alternatives, they exist, will measure judicial deference corrections officials' expertise; (c) extent accommodation have impact staff, liberty, allocation limited resources, impact, substantial, particular officials; (d) represents "exaggerated response" concerns, existence ready fully accommodates prisoner's de minimis costs valid being evidence unreasonableness. Pp. 84-91. 2. is, record here, reasonable facially valid. logically related security concerns officials, testified mail prisons used communicate escape plans, arrange violent acts, foster gang activity. Moreover, does not deprive prisoners all expression, simply bars communication people—other inmates—with whom authorities cause concerned. entitled basis significant liberty safety personnel, light testimony such facilitates development informal organizations threaten penal institutions. Nor obvious, easy regulation, since monitoring clearly impose more than cost terms burden staff resources required conduct item-by-item censorship, create appreciable risk missing dangerous communications. content unconstitutionally abridge First Amendment inmates. 91-93. 3. impermissibly burdened marriage regulation. 94-99. Prisoners constitutionally protected under Zablocki Redhail, 434 374, 98 673, 54 618 (1978). Although subject substantial restrictions result incarceration, sufficient important attributes form relationship. Butler Wilson, 415 953, 1479, 39 569 distinguished. 94-96. invalid relationship test. officials may regulate time circumstances takes place, prior approval warden, almost complete ban marriages here not, record, reasonably objectives. contention serves preventing "love triangles" lead confrontations without merit, rivalries likely develop formal ceremony. regulation's broad prohibition justified fellow affected where makes private decision civilian. exaggerated response claimed objectives, allowing unless warden finds threat security, order, public accommodate while imposing burden. articulated rehabilitation goal fostering self-reliance female prisoners. requiring refusal permission absent compelling reason, sweeps much broadly necessary, male had caused them no problems objections marrying civilians. 96-99. 777 F.2d 1307 (CA8 1985), affirmed part, reversed remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, POWELL, SCALIA, JJ., joined, Part III-B BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, joined. filed concurring part dissenting post, p. 100. Henry Thomas Herschel, Jefferson City, Mo., petitioners. Floyd Finch, Jr., Kansas respondents. Justice O'CONNOR Court. 1 This case requires us determine constitutionality Corrections relating inmate-to-inmate correspondence. Eighth Circuit, applying analysis, concluded violate rights. We hold rules. Applying standard, we uphold validity conclude restriction sustained. 2 * Respondents this injunctive relief damages United States Western Missouri. challenged complaint were effect jurisdiction litigation focused, however, practices Renz Correctional Institution (Renz), located Cedar population includes varying levels. Most classified medium maximum most minimum offenders. occasion provide protective custody from system. facility originally was built farm, still has perimeter guard towers walls. 3 Two issue here. relates It "with correctional institutions," matters." Other permitted "the parties involved." App. 34. Trial matter practice, determination permit correspond based members' familiarity progress reports, violations, psychological reports files rather individual piece mail. See 1307, 1308 1985). At Renz, rule "as practiced write non-family inmates." 586 F.Supp. 589, 591 (WD Mo.1984). 4 pending, superintendent prison, provides should "when reasons so." 47. term "compelling" defined, trial reason. F.Supp., 592. Prior promulgation rule, applicable did obligate assist wanted get married, also specifically authorize institution prohibit getting married. Ibid. 5 certified respondents pursuant Rule Civil Procedure 23. "persons either confined Center desire facilities." encompasses broader group persons "who . whose been violated employees Corrections." 21-22. 6 issued memorandum order finding unconstitutional. court, relying 413-414, 1811, applied standard. held unconstitutional infringement upon fundamental because far restrictive essential protection State's rehabilitation. 594. unnecessarily broad, court concluded, could effectively cope raised through less means, scanning potentially troublesome Id., 596. capricious manner. 7 Circuit (1985). properly evaluating regulations. Under supra, "only furthers unrelated suppression limitation greater necessary protect interest." F.2d, 1310. satisfy least achieving goals Appeals' view, meet problem conspiracies their authority read prisoner 1315-1316. security. met alternatives counseling, occur ceremony one. Absent become abusive, subsequent commission crime too tenuous denial right. 1315. 8 granted certiorari, 476 1139, 106 2244, 90 691 (1986). II 9 begin, below, our described principles necessarily frame analysis prisoners' claims. these federal must take cognizance claims 405, 1807. Prison walls barrier separating protections Constitution. Hence, example, retain petition government redress grievances, Johnson Avery, 393 483, 89 747, 21 718 (1969); against invidious racial discrimination Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment, Lee Washington, 390 333, 88 994, 19 1212 (1968); enjoy due process, Wolff McDonnell, 418 539, 2963, 41 935 (1974); Haines Kerner, 404 519, 92 594, 30 652 (1972). Because rights, "[w]hen practice offends guarantee, discharge duty rights." U.S., 405-406, S.Ct., 1807-08. 10 A principle identified recognition "courts ill equipped deal increasingly urgent administration reform." As Martinez acknowledged, America complex intractable, and, point, readily susceptible resolution decree." 404-405, Running inordinately difficult undertaking expertise, planning, commitment peculiarly province legislative executive branches government. moreover, task committed responsibility branches, separation powers counsel policy restraint. Where state system involved, have, additional reason accord authorities. id., 11 Our task, then, stated formulate responsive "policy restraint regarding complaints [to] need 406, 1808. itself resolve question framed. involved censorship proscribing statements "unduly complain," "magnify grievances," express "inflammatory political, racial, religious views." 415, 1812. case, determined proper general decided "broad questions 'prisoners' rights.' " 408, 1809. striking down content-based prisoners, stating "[w]hatever status claim uncensored outsider, plain latter's grounded Amendment's guarantee freedom speech." holding therefore turned fact "consequential prisoners." 409, 1809 (emphasis added). expressly reserved apply "involving 12 four following addressed "questions these, Pell Procunier, 417 817, 2800, 495 same Term challenge prohibiting face-to-face media interviews rejected interviews, noting judgments "are professional expertise absence considerations, ordinarily defer expert judgment 827, 2806. 13 next consider Jones North Carolina Prisoners' Union, 433 119, 97 2532, 53 629 (1977). There prohibited meetings "prisoners' labor union," solicitation join union, bulk mailings concerning union outside sources. Noting "got[ten] off wrong foot giving decisions administrators peculiar confinement," 125, 2537, "barely implicated" mailings, see 130, 2540, "reasonable" circumstances. meeting rejected, "[t]he rationally reasonable, indeed central, objectives administration." 129, 2539. 14 Bell Wolfish, 441 520, 99 1861, 60 447 (1979), concerned Bureau Prisons restricting receipt hardback books mailed directly publishers, book clubs, bookstores. upheld "rational clear problem. 550, 1880. "no evidence" problem, experts control prohibitions sweeping here." 551, And Block Rutherford, 468 576, 104 3227, 82 438 (1984), contact visits ground "responsible, experienced determined, sound discretion, jeopardize facility," concerns. 586, 3234, 3232. 15 none rights" heightened scrutiny, instead inquired burdens nevertheless provided closest analogy distinguished Court's Pell, Jones, Bell, variously involving "time, manner" regulations, restrict "presumptively dangerous" activities. 1310-1312. acknowledged claims, nonetheless believed one 16 disagree reasoning narrowly cabined. "relevant" reasonableness news reporters communicating public. 823-824, 2804-2805. These make any ordinary sense term. methods personal available "unimpressive" offered among 825, 2805. Nevertheless, scope placed thus teaches "we [are] called balance [legitimate] interests." 824, 17 Nor, adopted construed To begin with, how identify conduct, fall category. 1311-1312. come grouping "not think letter presents sort 'obvious problem' book." 1312. apparent, why books, scanned contraband electronic devices fluoroscopes, 574, 1882 (MARSHALL, dissenting), qualitatively respect correspondence, written codes detection; coordinated activity categorically appears conclusion about creating hierarchy standards review. 18 If already resolved posed now: "prison ., courts, institutional operations." 128, Subjecting day-to-day inflexible seriously hamper ability anticipate adopt innovative solutions intractable administration. distort decisionmaking every administrative possibility some somewhere way solving hand. Courts inevitably primary arbiters what constitutes solution thereby "unnecessarily perpetuat[ing] involvement affairs 407, opinions show, several issue. First, it. Thus, sustained logical irrational. objective inquire operated fashion, regard expression. 828, 2807; 20 factor restriction, shows, "other avenues" exercise right, 131, particularly conscious "measure owed gauging regulation." third consideration guards generally. closed environment institution, few changes ramifications others use prison's preserving order. When "ripple effect" deferential informed discretion officials. Cf. 132-133, 2541. 22 Finally, supra 587, 3233. By token, "least alternative" test: set up then shoot conceivable method accommodating claimant's complaint. ibid. But claimant point interests, III 23 barring demonstrates find petitioners' A. 24 According trial, provision primarily reasons. plans assaults acts. Tr. 76; 225-228. Witnesses growing gangs, communications members, transferring element combating 75-77; 266-267; 226. Officials certain compromised permitting 264-265. 25 connected Undoubtedly, felons potential spur criminal behavior: frequently even after released parole. See, e.g., 28 CFR § 2.40(a)(10) (1986) (federal parole conditioned nonassociation known criminals, officer). prisons, danger exacerbated presence gangs. isolating members—a strategy activity, G. Camp & C. Camp, Dept. Justice, Gangs: Their Extent, Nature Impact 64-65 (1985)—logically furthered prisoner-to-prisoner people concerned—inmates 26 overlooks personnel. opinion, core functions administration, maintaining internal result, respondents, like organizational activities (1977), exercised significantly everyone else, alike. Indeed, affects institution. kind tradeoff, choice all, "peculiarly [their] expertise," Pro- cunier, 2806—should lightly aside courts. 27 well-run systems, including Prisons, substantially similar 540.17 petitioners shown, proffered pursuit goals. impossible 159, 42-43, consequently messages. event, easily jargon prevent detection real 130 (noting "frequent" coded prison); Brief State Texas Amicus Curiae 7-9. communications, taken together sheer 176, supports adequate neutral, advances On basis, inmates.* B 29 support suggest They concede (1978), Loving Virginia, 388 87 1817, 1010 (1967), imply obtain "in forum." Petitioners 38, n. 6. argue tested urge settled "retains [constitutional] inconsistent his system." 822, 2804. marry, many incarceration. Many remain, taking account limitations imposed life. marriages, others, expressions emotional commitment. elements aspect marital addition, religions recognize having spiritual significance; spouses, therefore, faith well expression dedication. Third, eventually commutation, formed expectation ultimately consummated. often precondition benefits (e.g., Social Security benefits), property tenancy entirety, inheritance rights), other, tangible legitimation children born out wedlock). incidents marriage, aspects commitment, unaffected confinement 31 Taken together, remaining context. summarily affirming Rockefeller, 365 377 (SDNY 1973), contrary. That sentenced life imprisonment; importantly, punishment crime. 381-382 (Lasker, part) (asserted punishing sufficiently deprivation right); Mandel Bradley, 432 173, 2238, 2240, 199 (1977) ("Because summary affirmance only, rationale gleaned solely below"). 32 prohibits approved doing noted previously, reason" approve marriage. note initially civilians, 40. urged implication nonprisoners entail reach question, test, withstand scrutiny. 33 prohibition. concern emphasized might 36, 39. With rehabilitation, abuse home overly dependent figures, dependence crimes committed. 154-155. petitioner Turner, women needed concentrate developing skills self-reliance, 80-81, rehabilitative goal. emphasize understood Superintendent Turner's experience ill-advised requests 32-34. 34 written, No doubt placing superintendent. 551.10 (marriage permitted, safety). aware place brief—the creation pointed nothing suggesting viewed entanglements. Common likewise suggests formation love triangles: surely housing instance justifies rights—indeed, wishes civilian, (apart logistics wedding ceremony) completely 35 allow explained see, 21-22, routinely allowed adoption justification explain banning objection inmate-civilian 240-241, Turner he usually object 141-142. centered exclusively ex-felons; marriages. 36 although disposition suspect. Of discussed refused excessive dependency. paternalism proposed scrutinized carefully before current regulation—only period 1979-1983—whereas during approved. lopsided rule. 37 undisputed place. 5. conclude, invalid. IV 38 facial infirm. findings address remand consideration. Accordingly, affirmed; invalidating reversed; remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. ordered. BLACKMUN join, part. 42 How describes infringes consequence actual showing demands prime example. 43 appear difference quest "needlessly broad"—the requirement interests," ante, 89, represent "an 'exaggerated response' concerns." Ante, 87. satisfied "logical perceived cautious 94, original), virtually meaningless. Application seem disregard whenever imagination produces plausible able discern discipline bullwhips prisoners; total communication, outsiders conceivably interested arranging attack I dissent opinion.1 44 am invalidation rely rejection stringent announced II. 97. concludes careful examination that, "reasonableness" fail justifications behalf lack support. III-A, newly minted product plainly improper appellate encroachment factfinding domain Icicle Seafoods, Inc. Worthington, 475 709, 714, 1527, 1530, 739 case—and principal dissent—rests respective ways examined record. my correctly court's adequately supported sustaining administered contrast, sifts own2 45 helpful "proper" review, preliminary somehow lighten decide case. precise evident complaint, launching leveled sent Renz: 46 "20. information belief, Correction exception Renz. defendant pattern refusing receive letters institutions, situation unique 47 "21. feels inmate. manner residing desires Renz." Amended Complaint, 11-12. 48 face, System "if involved."3 After bench 49 "6. provisions divisional followed Theoretically uses deciding forth Inmate Orientation Booklet presented arrival commonly throughout System. 50 "7. enforced harmed proceed Department short 51 "8. Inmates greatest 52 "13. Correspondence denied despite desired maintain wholesome friendships." 591-592. factual findings, bear served injunction: "Even justified, bar fall. sweeping. cut recipient another demonstrate special 55 56 "Defendants failed needs institutions." 57 reviewing conclusions, held: 58 "[W]ithout strong illegal conspiracies." 1315-1316 1985) 59 rests agree: unable avoid associated Amendment. ostensible breadth opinion4 furnishes license reverse holding. dictate below. 61 Without explicitly disagreeing fact, rejects judge's facilities sweeping" or, language seems prefer, predicted petitioner's witnesses. Instead, bases own highly selective evidence. 62 include: (1) speculation possible "gang problems," escapes, secret codes, 91-93; (2) "does expression," 92; (3) indicating "that correspondence," 93. None 63 Speculation adverse consequences three witnesses: Center; Sally Halford, Director Lansing; David Blackwell, former Adult Institutions offer proof prevented dissemination plots. He merely assisted him duties "[f]rom standpoint don't 75. Superintendent's establish risk; surmise inhibit early stages uprising. 76. entirely Renz.5 65 Neither witnesses knowledge conditions Ms. Halford reviewed rules visited "a couple hours." 146. Mr. Blackwell charged overall management Missouri's adult daily 259-260. sure" familiar family. 44. 66 them, indeed, witness, mentioned witness "open An whomever please." 158. She policy. preceding year escaped area helped large over week. speculated mails plan escape. judge discounted 158-159. Second, suggested frustrate problem." 160. view her acknowledgment developed 158, presumably attached little weight prediction. irony persuade superiors 168, yet apparently discount speculative testimony.6 67 trying discourage organization "gangs" ethnic similarities "by correspondence." 267. testify, "carte blanche" correspondence,7 know enforcing ban.8 His assertion pose backed speculation: 68 "[A]: sure fashion. feel probability writing things just positive writing, nature offenders 69 "Q: What percentage [mail] you personally read? 70 "A: Very, very little. 71 So basically speculating about? 72 Yes." 82-83. 73 Quite clearly, Blackwell's estimate justifying conform liberal serious incarcerated.9 "failed 74 relies totally deprived opportunity world. observation irrelevant broad. evenhanded acceptance argument upholding regulation—which quite invalidates—because restrictive. 75 final concluding belief "impossible" received impossibility nor make. tells volume Renz; to, from, observed oral correspondence: 76 "The difficulty position never [mail inmates], didn't idea except say that—you know, 8,000 figured write." Oral Arg. 14. 77 cite insurmountable Halford. "[t]here want impossible." 41-43.10 gave testimony,11 again she referring "all incoming mail," course, Kansas, relatively small Renz.12 short, insufficient novo impossibility.13 does, ignores: "14. scan outgoing mail, 79 contradicts screening unbearable, outright intolerable. blanket "excessive concern; consensus opinion—including authorities—that reliable accords deference.14 80 contrasts overbroad puzzling.15 inexplicably expresses views common context problem" receives deference. dismisses defense spouse, once attempt aid escaping,16 grants credence concealed letters. 81 disregards considerations invalidate turns said sweep routine though remainder State. value corresponding friend world prohibited. paternalism" toward 99, Unfathomably, rejecting triangles accepts regulation.17 pointing inconsistencies, treatment flawed; stated, concur leads unconstitutional.18 83 affirms Appeals, respectfully partial reversal forays side, erratic affirm partially rest unarticulated assumption fundamentally exchange satisfaction, solace, affords Even recognized literature, history, anthropology, text Constitution protects marry. protection. Suggesting reaching II, 105, STEVENS complains "ignore[d] Court," 102, 2, improperly "encroach[ed] Court." Post, 101. broad" semantically II: test (1974). states, passage quoted Court: "[T]he freedoms involved. Thus broad." 1811 sweeping," 596 Mo.1984), erroneous predicated Finding letter-by-letter harm, "there available; reiterates ban. show satisfies largely beside interest. STEVENS' charge fact-finding suffers flawed premise III-A answers pose, namely, 91—92, becomes, hands, searching actually led plot, uprising, violence 106-109. Likewise, "clearly goals," 93, "finding" task" 110, 112. Nowhere, "finding," Renz' previous clear, mandate 'lowest denominator' 554, 1882, (1979). raises houses towers, house custody. 22-24. open-ended risks Judge Kaufman's Abdul Wali Coughlin, 754 1015, 1033 (CA2 strike fair well-settled proposition give virtue cites portions transcript amicus curiae brief Texas, 91, ignores bind erroneous. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 52(a). deem opinion: "We presumptively inherently district unconstitutional." 1313. warfare 117. coming 118. conceded screen leading warfare: Is something that? dictates department From dealing individually personally, no. Now, let's limit suspect warfare, Do people? Those identified, no, wouldn't 119. irony. While ostensibly lacks abrogated felt "too effort tied send forms various sundry we're agreement time." 168. "Q. write, stop course; isn't true? "A. No, course course. carte blanche facility. done be. Let me refer inmate-to-inmate. Are saying aren't told Center? deny inmate-to-inmate, it." 43. You relative? hand Plaintiffs' Exhibit B, excuse me, Defendants' B. plaintiffs' number. orientation manual, February 1983. direct your attention paragraph says only. "Now, not." contained level classifications. offenders, realize plaintiffs accept wants to? to." 41. 3, sir, visiting Corrections, signed you. "I 1(C), sealed paragraph, inspected room contraband, plots, forgery, fraud, schemes. tell examine plot reading it? read. believe, planned. [W]hen planned, 42-43. indication amount permitted. pretty will, vast majority another, offender obvious load." 108. "[I]n Due absolutely do." 159. average 1983 fiscal 270. American Assn., Juvenile Departments, Institutions, Agencies, Paroling Authorities 214 (1984). asked response: it's boring reading. Another thing, poor time. in, waste 176. Earl Englebrecht contents took approximately hour day. 97, 99. certainty frequent room. 102. hardly portion speculation, 88, suggestion brief, 7-9, unsupported ABA Standards Criminal 23-6.1, Commentary, 23.76 (2d ed. 1980) ("[P]risoners length choose, using desire, correspondents selection, present controls govern large"). Association "current deemed detention managers representing corrections." ACA, Local Detention Facilities xiii 1981). Standard 2-5328 convincing "limitations security" volume, "length, language, source" receive. 88. bifurcated absurd inmate, carry courtship beforehand "immediate member." Explaining request Diana Finley married Quillam denied, stated: "If gets out, got problems. threat, man penitentiary wife him, sophisticated institution." 185-186. 187. One closely tracks triangle" advanced regulation: Let's Flowers. Barks? Yes. Why? men. resides Barks. ask this. occasions other. understanding woman intending married? Well, speak people, going short." 237-238. later elaborated redirect examination: Now example being, say, men woman. Would call chat office try them? position." 116-117. paternalistic enforcement "protect" prevents exchanging Assuming man: somebody new person [pa]roled, fellow? Then situations then. And, cannot? [triggering concerns] situation. situation, no." 134-135. suppose comes says, old anymore, fellow. Once to—once can't anybody? keep females. male, too, exist." 135. along lines: "If, difficulty, start rumor confront seeing someone else else; variety that." 271 Donald Wyrick, similarly prisons: "Well, times develop, inside becomes extremely worried thinks messing around things. agitated, worried, frustrated, type thing. bad explode hurt escape." 231-232. Having violation, fashioning remedy. Paradise, 480 149, 155-156, 4, 1053, ----, 203 (1987) (STEVENS, judgment). difficulties shaping improper, obliterate effective actions

Category: 2