Court Opinion

ID: 9426928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:19:17.279025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:03.853314
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Stevens,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
My disagreement with the Court is extremely narrow. The Court has not sanctioned a restraint on discussion between inmates on the relative advantages or disadvantages of belonging to a prisoners’ union. The prohibition of inmate-to-inmate solicitation which the Court upholds is defined as “an invitation to collectively engage in a legitimately prohibited activity.” Ante, at 132. The Court has made it clear that mere membership in a union is not such an activity, ante, at 128-129. The language of appellants’ “no-solicitation regula*139tion” is, however, somewhat broader.* Therefore, instead of concluding that the entire regulation is valid, ante, at 136, I would hold it invalid to the extent that it exceeds the Court’s definition.
I join the portions of the Court’s opinion concerning the bulk mailing and union meeting claims.

“Persons in the custody of the Department of Correction are prohibited from soliciting other inmates about membership in any inmate union.” Jurisdictional Statement 38.