Document: 539 U.S. 126 OVERTON, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.v.BAZZETTA AL. No. 02-94. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 26, 2003. Decided June 16, Responding to concerns about prison security problems caused by the increasing number visitors Michigan's prisons and substance abuse among inmates, Michigan Department Corrections (MDOC) promulgated new regulations limiting visitation. An inmate may be visited qualified clergy attorneys on business persons placed an approved list, which include unlimited immediate family members 10 others; minor children are not permitted visit unless they children, stepchildren, grandchildren, or siblings inmate; if inmate's parental rights terminated, child visit; a visitor must accompanied member child's legal guardian; former prisoners except that prisoner who is warden approves. Prisoners commit two substance-abuse violations receive only attorneys, but apply for reinstatement visitation privileges after years. Respondents—prisoners, their friends, members—filed 42 U. S. C. § 1983 action, alleging as pertain noncontact visits violate First, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendments. The District agreed, Sixth Circuit affirmed. Held: 1. fact bear rational relation legitimate penological interests suffices sustain them regardless whether respondents have constitutional right association has survived incarceration. This accords substantial deference professional judgment administrators, significant responsibility defining corrections system's goals determining most appropriate means accomplish them. satisfy each four factors used decide regulation affecting survives incarceration withstands challenge. See Turner v. Safley, 482 78, 89-91. relationship interest. restrictions children's related MDOC's valid in maintaining internal protecting from exposure sexual other misconduct accidental injury. They promote security, perhaps goal, reducing total disruption children. It also reasonable ensure visiting supervised adults charged with best interests. Prohibiting inmates bears self-evident connection State's interest preventing future crime. Restricting serves goal deterring drug alcohol use within prison. Second, alternative exercising asserted those prohibited visiting. can send messages through visit, communicate letter telephone. Visitation alternatives need ideal; available. Third, accommodating associational would considerable impact guards, allocation resources, safety causing reallocation financial resources impairing officers' ability protect all inside prison's walls. Finally, suggested no fully accommodate while imposing more than de minimis cost goals. Pp. 131-136. 2. restriction cruel unusual confinement condition violating Eighth Amendment. Withdrawing limited period order effect discipline dramatic departure accepted standards conditions. Nor does create inhumane conditions, deprive basic necessities fail health safety, involve infliction pain injury deliberate indifference risk. 136-137. 286 F. 3d 311, reversed. KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion, joined, post, p. 137. THOMAS, judgment, SCALIA, 138. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR SIXTH CIRCUIT. 2 Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General Michigan, argued cause petitioners. With him briefs were Mike Cox, Attorney General, Leo H. Friedman, Mark Matus, Lisa Ward, Assistant Attorneys General. 3 Jeffrey A. Lamken States amicus curiae. brief Olson, McCallum, Deputy Clement, Robert M. Loeb. 4 Deborah LaBelle respondents. her Barbara R. Levine Patricia Streeter.* 5 JUSTICE KENNEDY Court. 6 State regulation, places certain inmates. question before substantive due process mandate Amendment, First Amendments applicable 7 * population increased early 1990's. More brought visitors, straining available supervision control. In particular, officials found it difficult maintain during prevent smuggling trafficking drugs. Special encountered increase at risk seeing hearing harmful conduct special care facilities. 8 incidence this period. Drug unlawful direct threat objectives system, including rehabilitation, maintenance order, prevention violence prisons. 9 response these concerns, (MDOC Department) revised its policies 1995, promulgating here issue. One aspect Department's approach was limit eligible receive, decrease visitors. Under regulations, individuals official without being listed. Mich. Admin. Code Rule 791.6609(2) (1999); Director's Office Mem. 1995-59 (effective date Aug. 25, 1995). list prisoner's designates, subject some restrictions. 791.6609(2). Minors under age 18 inmate. 791.6609(2)(b); Comp. Laws Ann. 791.268a (West Supp. 2003). If been visitor. 791.6609(6)(a) (1999). A authorized adult guardian child. 791.6609(5); Dept. Procedure OP-SLF/STF-05.03.140, Sept. 15, 1999). place given prior approval. 791.6609(7). 11 policy sought control widespread drugs prisoners. multiple any clergy. 791.6609(11)(d). 791.6609(12). Reinstatement warden's discretion. Ibid. 12 Respondents prisoners, members. action Rev. Stat. 1979, 1983, upon certified class Federal Civil 23. 13 Inmates classified highest risks, determined MDOC, case challenge method making determination. By contrast contact visitation, allowed physical large room, restricted glass panel, opposite sides booth. facilities booths located one side same room visits. us 14 Eastern agreed pertaining invalid. Bazzetta McGinnis, 148 2d 813 (2001). affirmed, 311 (2002), we granted certiorari, 537 1043 (2002). II 15 Appeals error. We first consider contention, Appeals, infringe association. 16 said Constitution protects "certain kinds highly personal relationships," Roberts Jaycees, 468 609, 618, 619-620 (1984). And outside context, there discussion our cases familial relationships, between grandchildren grandparents. Moore East Cleveland, 431 494 (1977) (plurality opinion); Meyer Nebraska, 262 390 (1923). 17 further elaboration matters. very object imprisonment confinement. Many liberties enjoyed citizens surrendered prisoner. retain inconsistent proper Jones North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., 433 119, 125 (1977); Shaw Murphy, 532 223, 229 And, established, freedom least compatible Jones, supra, 125-126; Hewitt Helms, 459 460 (1983). Some curtailment expected context. do hold, imply, intimate altogether terminated always irrelevant claims made attempt explore define length determine extent because challenged question. 89 (1987). taken similar previous cases, such Pell Procunier, 417 817, 822 (1974), cited approval Turner. Pell, unnecessary Amendment Prison administrators had reasonably exercised furthering goals, controlling rationale decision. accord system See, e. g., 826-827; 467; Thornburgh Abbott, 490 401, 408 (1989); 126, 128; Turner, 85, 89; Block Rutherford, 576, 588 (1984); Bell Wolfish, 441 520, 562 (1979). burden, moreover, prove validity disprove it. O'Lone Estate Shabazz, 342, 350 (1987); Shaw, 232. failed so here. 19 held relevant deciding challenge: "`valid, connection'" governmental interest; open exercise right; what accommodation guards resources; "ready alternatives" regulation. S., 20 Turning conclude see, 823, particular. Protecting harm Block, 586-587. logical demonstrated trial testimony allows supervise better minimize disruptions areas. 21 As requiring guardian, 22 argue excluding nieces nephews whom reject events suffice invalidate non-contact To reduce line drawn, categories set out reasonable. Visits closest her—children, siblings. prohibition longer simply recognition status determination proceedings. 23 prohibiting crimes. recognized "communication felons potential spur criminal behavior." 91-92. 24 violations, bar removed years, intractable problems. Bell, 559; 586-587; Hudson Palmer, 517, 527 even necessary management technique induce compliance rules behavior, especially high-security few lose. regard note numerous implemented deter violations. Brief Colorado et al. Amici Curiae 4-9. 25 invoked instances where infractions were, respondents' view, minor. Even inclined, though, substitute conclusions concerning reached individual cite sufficient strike down contest 2-year automatic end agree severe. faced evidence treated facto permanent ban might reach different conclusion particular application Those issues presented case, challenges instances. 26 Having interest, seek assert. 90. Were shown communication existed, though conclusive, unreasonable. That showing, however, cannot made. associating sending visit. 825. Although option barred protest writing inadequate illiterate communications young say, too, phone calls expensive, sufficient. Alternatives ideal, however; Here, utility give support particularly context limited, completely withdrawn. 27 Another consideration 90; Hudson, 526 (visitor safety). Accommodating demands impair officers When consequences present, "particularly deferential" administrators' regulatory judgments. 28 presence ready undermines reasonableness regulations. impose least-restrictive-alternative test, asks instead pointed obvious accommodates goal. 90-91. meeting high standard disagree suggestion allowing alternative. Increasing way surely negligible served limitation could time defer activity result interactions. suggest duration shortened applied serious go far toward little meet Turner's standard. These considerations justify decision III 29 claim violation undoubtedly makes bear. But not, circumstances fall below mandated Much already withdrawal bring applies well. like many States, uses regular effecting discipline. conditions Cf. Sandin Conner, 515 472, 485 (1995). necessities, safety. injury, occur. Estelle Gamble, 429 97 (1976); Rhodes Chapman, 452 337 (1981). much period, arbitrary manner inmate, present considerations. based indefinite denial procedural safeguards, ruling entire 30 31 32 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici curiae urging reversal Ken Salazar, Colorado, Alan J. Gilbert, Juliana Zolynas, respective follows: William Pryor, Jr., Alabama, Charlie Crist Florida, Thurbert E. Baker Georgia, G. Lance Idaho, Steve Carter Indiana, Joseph Curran, Maryland, Mississippi, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon Missouri, Don Stenberg Frankie Sue Del Papa Nevada, Wayne Stenehjem Dakota, Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Hardy Myers Oregon, D. Michael Fisher Pennsylvania, Barnett South Paul Summers Tennessee, Greg Abbott Texas, Shurtleff Utah, Patrick Crank Wyoming; Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Kent Scheidegger Charles Hobson. amici affirmance American Liberties Union Elizabeth Alexander, David Fathi, Steven Shapiro, Lenora Lapidus, Daniel Greenberg, John Boston, Steinberg, Kary Moss; National Council Crime Delinquency Jill Wheaton; Public Defender Service Columbia Denenfeld Giovanna Shay. Roderick Hills, La Raza 33 BREYER join, concurring. 34 Our today faithful principle "federal courts take cognizance inmates." 84 explained Turner: 35 "Prison walls form barrier separating protections Constitution. Hence, example, petition government redress grievances, Johnson Avery, 393 483 (1969); protected against invidious racial discrimination Equal Protection Clause Lee Washington, 333 (1968); enjoy process, Wolff McDonnell, 418 (1974); Haines Kerner, 404 519 (1972). Because rights, `[w]hen practice offends fundamental guarantee, federal will discharge duty rights.' Procunier Martinez, 416 405-406." 36 groundbreaking Morrissey Brewer, 471 (1972), parole revocation deprivation liberty meaning Due Process rejected view once state mere slave. ex rel. Miller Twomey, 479 701, 711-713 (CA7 1973). Amendment's proscription punishment marked outer rights. important emphasize nothing Court's signals resurrection kind. ante, 131. contrary, remains true "restraints conviction entails citizen beyond ethical tradition respect dignity intrinsic worth every individual." 2d, 712. 37 SCALIA joins, judgment. 38 I concur grounds offered majority. 39 40 asked "[w]hether Amendments." Petitioners i. my presented, formulated granting draws attention wrong inquiry. Rather asking abstract "survives" incarceration, 132, should ask lawful sentence took away free persons. 41 precedents rest unstated (and erroneous) presumption contains implicit definition manifestly and, redefine types punishment, imprisonment, encompass various deprivations—provided deprivations consistent "rights" reexamination. asserting then "bear[s] interests." Ante, 132 (citing (1987)). 43 progeny purport power person convicted offense For struck marrying absent permission superintendent. 89, 94-99. properly understood, holding both marry.* provision speaks scope Cruel Unusual Punishments neither nor interpreting challenging sentences must, unconstitutional defect, rely solely 44 inquiry, therefore, validly deprives ordinary, law-abiding Whether encompasses extinction turns law, prerogative how punish awards great determinations. Payne 501 808, 824 (1991) ("Under primary crimes law [and] fixing punishments commission . rests States"); see Ewing California, 538 11, (2003) (opinion J.) ("[O]ur deferring legislatures implementing [sentencing] decisions longstanding"). 45 therefore thought implicitly marriage lawfully imposed that, worked process. Yet, when resolution issue rendered predicate state-law question, ordinarily abstain passing Railroad Comm'n Tex. Pullman Co., 312 496 (1941). prisoners' encompassed matter remain (meritless, Part II, infra) claim. Pullman, abstention considered below. result, petitioners have, submitted sort guesswork hallmark furthermore, seems make effort show did extinguish now enforce. good reason. 46 doubtful sentencing respondent intended permit access Such entirely segregating society, 471, (1972) (incarceration design intrudes "to friends enduring attachments normal life"); cf. Olim Wakinekona, 461 238 (1983) (upholding several hours flight home). B 47 Though confer ultimately itself answer, nonetheless confronted case. analysis strongly suggests extinguished incarcerating Restrictions rationally connected running prison, designed avoid adverse impacts replaced alternatives," leave accomplishing prohibit, presumptively included imprisonment. Moreover, history supports From began criminals sentences, administered administers today. 48 Incarceration 18th century England Colonies virtually nonexistent punishment. Punishment History (1993) (hereinafter Friedman) ("From standpoint, obviously missing, [in colonial corrections], imprisonment"). Colonial jails function housing debtors awaiting trial. id., 49. institutions generally characterized "[d]isorder neglect." McGowen, Well-Ordered Prison: England, 1780-1865, Oxford Practice Western Society 79 (N. Morris & Rothman eds. 1995) McGowen). surprising quite permeable. debtor come he pleased, long remained area ("`prison bounds'") returned jail sleep. Friedman connections get food clothing outside, 50; Lewis, Newgate Dannemora: Rise Penitentiary New York, 1796-1848, 49 (1965) Lewis) ("Many items contraband rum, tools, money, unauthorized messages"). sum, "[t]here authority," McGowen 79, uniformity, known part penitentiary "basically nineteenth-century invention." 48. During time, became centerpiece correctional theory, whipping, traditional times, fell into disrepute. industrialization produced rapid growth, mobility, cities well-defined community; public resulting stigma shame wielded power, methods effective small closed communities. Id., 77. 50 rise debate Auburn Pennsylvania systems, isolation fellow outside. Rothman, Discovery Asylum 82 (1971) Rothman) ("As schemes maximum emphasis communicating anyone else, point dispute convicts work silently groups individually solitary cells"); 95. justifications isolation, centered around belief necessity constructing setting "deviant" (i. e., criminal), environment targeted corrupting influence his community. 71; Hirsch, Penitentiary: Prisons Early America 17, 19, (1992); 77 (describing changing attitudes origin crime). Indeed, feature penitentiary—external appearance, arrangement, daily routine—were aimed achieving 79-80; 83. 51 Whatever motives establishing combating crime, standardized 1780 1865. 79. turned islands "undeviating regularity," Lewis 122, 108. Inside prisons, jailers; difference conspicuously obvious. lives carefully regulated, contacts visitors; letters censored. Any resemble sociability world target controls prohibitions. 52 benefit confined, rather detriment. tours revenues. tours, freely stare obey categorically forbidding look 124. addition general "burden convict's spirit" "the galling knowledge humiliation frequent gaze neighbors," women "almost unendurable," prompting physician complain in. 53 1840's relaxed correspondence visitations, continued Sing six months, provided penned chaplain censored warden. Each relatives sentence, supervised. No reading materials kind, Bible, inside. Christianson, Liberty Some: 500 Years Imprisonment 145 (1998). stringent regimentation lives, "had assumed unmistakable appearance," envision entitlement 54 alter retention previously enjoyed, appears sentenced backdrop conception 55 reasons McMillian, 503 1, 18-19 (1992) (THOMAS, dissenting), visitations Consequently, fail. pursuant law. Sentencing term may, carry implied delegation otherwise incarcerated. Thus, acting ultra vires discretion them, implication,

Category: 2