Beard, Jeffrey (PA Dept. of Corrections) v. Banks, Ronald (06/28/2006)
Beard, Jeffrey (PA Dept. of Corrections) v. Banks, Ronald (06/28/2006)
Questions presented: Does a prison policy that denies newspapers, magazines and photographs to the most difficult inmates in the prison system in an effort to promote security and good behavior violate the 1st Amendment?
BY KEVIN ROYKO, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE
No newspapers, magazines or photographs, unless religious or legal in nature.
Those are the rules in Level 2 of the Long Term Segregation Unit, where the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections houses its most "incorrigible" inmates. Along with the ban on periodicals, prisoners in the unit are also prohibited from having televisions or radios, must remain in their cells 23 hours a day and are limited to one visit with an immediate family member each month.
Prison officials said they implemented the ban on periodicals for rehabilitative and security purposes. They reason that depriving inmates in the unit of these materials will provide incentive to behave better and consequently earn their way back into units where the materials are available to prisoners. They also contend that the ban will mean tighter security as prisoners won't be able to use the materials as weapons and tools to fling feces at guards or as fuel to start cell fires.
Prisoners assigned to Level 2 must remain there for a minimum of 90 days, and can end up there indefinitely, until prison officials determine they've earned promotion to a less restrictive unit.
From the unit's inception in April 2000, until he was moved out in the fall of 2005, Ronald Banks was one of the approximately 40 prisoners who are confined there at any one time.
On behalf of himself and the other inmates in the unit, Banks filed a lawsuit, claiming the ban on reading materials and photographs amounts to a violation of his free speech rights under the 1st Amendment.
"This seems like a significant free speech issue," said Jere Krakoff, a Pittsburg attorney representing the prisoners. "There's a 1st Amendment interest here that relates to an inmate having access to information and ideas going on in the world outside the prison walls."
But lawyers representing prison officials believe that the rules are constitutional and serve a legitimate purpose in providing prisoners with incentive to correct violent and disruptive behavior.
"These are the most incorrigible prisoners, men who refuse to reform their behavior and continue to commit criminal acts inside the prison system," said Kemal Mericli, a lawyer in Pennsylvania's state attorney general's office.
"This is really a very specific limitation of the prisoners' constitutional rights," Mericli said. "It is one of the few things we could do to get them to behave, and we believe that [the policy] serves a legitimate penological purpose."
Whether the policy is reasonably related to the legitimate needs of prison officials is the constitutional measuring stick. In the 1987 Supreme Court case, Turner v. Safley, a four-point test was established to determine how to assess the constitutionality of prison regulations.
In Turner, the Court held that the constitutional rights of prisoners can be limited at times if there is a rational connection between the prison policy and a legitimate penological interest; prisoners still have an alternative means of exercising the constitutional right in question; accommodating the constitutional right will not negatively affect the security of guards or other inmates; and no alternative measures are available, meaning that the regulation is not an exaggerated response to prison concerns.
In January 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania reviewed and adopted the decision of the magistrate who had initially heard Banks' case and ruled in favor of prison officials.
District Judge Terrence McVerry found that the policy met the standard set by Turner.
Banks then appealed to the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.
There the lower court's ruling was reversed in a 2-1 vote, with recent Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito providing the lone dissent. He argued that there was a logical connection between the denial of access and the prison goal of deterring the misconduct of inmates not yet in long term segregation.
Judge Julio Fuentes wrote the majority opinion, which found that the prison policy failed to measure up to the four factors in Turner.
With regard to the first factor of the Turner standard, the service of a legitimate penological interest, Fuentes agreed with Banks' argument that "contrary to the assertions of prison authorities and the District Court, isolating prisoners from the going-on in the outside world tends to undercut any genuine rehabilitation."
Fuentes also doubted the security rationale for the policy. Agreeing with Banks again, he wrote, "[t]here are many other non-prohibited means for the inmates to fuel fires, hurl waste, conceal contraband and create weapons."
The 3rd Circuit also found that the policy failed regarding the second factor of Turner because a blanket ban on the materials for Level 2 prisoners equates to a violation of the "First Amendment right of access to a reasonable amount of newspapers, magazines and photographs."
Citing the small size of the unit, no more than 40 inmates, Fuentes found the policy failed to meet Turner's third point and wrote that "[e]ven if limited distribution of periodicals were to require additional monitoring, such an accommodation would have a minimal impact" on the ability of the prison to safeguard facility personnel and other inmates.
Regarding point four of Turner, the 3rd Circuit disagreed with prison officials that without the periodicals ban Level 2 segregation would not prove restrictive enough to encourage prisoners to behave, and held that conditions were already substantially more restrictive those than in other units.
Both Krakoff and Mericli argued for their respective sides before the district and appeals courts.
"There are [policies] available to the prison officials short of interfering with 1st Amendment rights," Krakoff said. "There are positions between absolute prohibition and some access that will still accomplish rehabilitation and maintain security."
In Turner, the Supreme Court also stated that judges, because they tend to be "ill-equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform," should give deference to the opinions of prison officials regarding prison regulations.
"I think the other side will argue that the 3rd Circuit didn't defer to prison officials in this case and substituted its own opinion," Krakoff said. "But deference doesn't mean the judiciary should blindly follow whatever prison officials say."
But Mericli believes the policy is not only constitutionally sound, but also works.
"We think we meet the Turner test," Mericli said. "There is documented evidence of prisoners using newspapers to start fires and fling feces. They can have visits, get telephone calls and letters to get [outside] news. The unit is incredibly costly to operate and this would add to the cost, and it's not an exaggerated response because these guys have refused to reform under other policies."
"We're not interested in keeping these guys [in Level 2]," he said. "If they behave well they can move to Level 1 and eventually back into the general population. In a sense, the key to the jailhouse door is in their hands."
Judge Julio Fuentes wrote the majority opinion, which found that the prison policy failed to measure up to the four factors in Turner.
With regard to the first factor of the Turner standard, the service of a legitimate penological interest, Fuentes agreed with Banks' argument that "contrary to the assertions of prison authorities and the District Court, isolating prisoners from the going-on in the outside world tends to undercut any genuine rehabilitation."
Fuentes also doubted the security rationale for the policy. Agreeing with Banks again, he wrote, "[t]here are many other non-prohibited means for the inmates to fuel fires, hurl waste, conceal contraband and create weapons."
The 3rd Circuit also found that the policy failed regarding the second factor of Turner because a blanket ban on the materials for Level 2 prisoners equates to a violation of the "First Amendment right of access to a reasonable amount of newspapers, magazines and photographs."
Citing the small size of the unit, no more than 40 inmates, Fuentes found the policy failed to meet Turner's third point and wrote that "[e]ven if limited distribution of periodicals were to require additional monitoring, such an accommodation would have a minimal impact" on the ability of the prison to safeguard facility personnel and other inmates.
Regarding point four of Turner, the 3rd Circuit disagreed with prison officials that without the periodicals ban Level 2 segregation would not prove restrictive enough to encourage prisoners to behave, and held that conditions were already substantially more restrictive those than in other units.
Both Krakoff and Mericli argued for their respective sides before the district and appeals courts.
"There are [policies] available to the prison officials short of interfering with 1st Amendment rights," Krakoff said. "There are positions between absolute prohibition and some access that will still accomplish rehabilitation and maintain security."
In Turner, the Supreme Court also stated that judges, because they tend to be "ill-equipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problems of prison administration and reform," should give deference to the opinions of prison officials regarding prison regulations.
"I think the other side will argue that the 3rd Circuit didn't defer to prison officials in this case and substituted its own opinion," Krakoff said. "But deference doesn't mean the judiciary should blindly follow whatever prison officials say."
But Mericli believes the policy is not only constitutionally sound, but also works.
"We think we meet the Turner test," Mericli said. "There is documented evidence of prisoners using newspapers to start fires and fling feces. They can have visits, get telephone calls and letters to get [outside] news. The unit is incredibly costly to operate and this would add to the cost, and it's not an exaggerated response because these guys have refused to reform under other policies."
"We're not interested in keeping these guys [in Level 2]," he said. "If they behave well they can move to Level 1 and eventually back into the general population. In a sense, the key to the jailhouse door is in their hands."
On Nov. 14, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted review in the case.
If Alito should be appointed to the Supreme Court and recuses himself from the case, the decision could end in a 4-4 tie. If that happens the ruling of the 3rd Circuit will stand.
On June 28, 2006, with Alito on the bench though not participating in the case, the Court sided 6-2 with the Pennsylania prison authorities.
Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer reasoned that the prison's justifications were sufficient, and pointed specifically to the need to motivate better behavior on the part of particularly difficult prisoners.
Though the Court recognized that family visits in Overton and access to newspapers, magazines, and photographs have important constitutional dimensions, prison officials have imposed the deprivations only upon those with serious prison-behavior problems and only after exercising their professional judgment on how to handle such prison populations.
Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.