Noelle Hanrahan v. Gary Mohr, 905 F.3d 947

Background

Plaintiffs: five prisoners involved in the 1993 Lucasville riot (four restricted-population/death-row inmates and one general-population death-row inmate, Skatzes) and four journalists denied in-person, recorded interviews with those prisoners.
ODRC policy categorically prohibited face-to-face or video-recorded media interviews with restricted-population inmates; general-population interview approvals considered factors including "nature of the interview" and victim impact.
Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming First and Fourteenth Amendment violations (content-based restriction and due process/equal protection theories; latter claims not pursued on appeal).
District court granted summary judgment for defendants as to restricted-population prisoners (alternative communication channels existed) but denied as to Skatzes; later ODRC revised media policies and approved Skatzes’s interviews and defendants moved to dismiss as moot.
Sixth Circuit affirmed: (1) the categorical restriction on restricted-population inmates survived Turner scrutiny and (2) the remaining claims were moot after ODRC’s policy changes and granting of interviews.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Whether ODRC’s categorical ban on in-person interviews for restricted-population inmates violated the First Amendment	The ban was content-based (motivated by anticipated discussion of Lucasville) and therefore unlawful	The policy is a neutral, security-based regulation reasonably related to legitimate penological interests	Held constitutional under Turner: valid, rational connection to prison security; not invalid merely for targeting certain speech when serving security interests
2) Whether a content-based ban is per se invalid in prison context	Content-based restrictions are presumptively suspect and must be struck down	Turner/Thornburgh allow content-informed rules if they further important governmental interest unrelated to suppression of expression	Court: Turner/Thornburgh permit some content-based distinctions so long as the governmental objective is legitimate, neutral in purpose, and rationally related to that objective
3) Application of Turner factors (alternatives, impact, absence of ready alternatives)	In-person interviews are essential to journalism and have no adequate substitutes	Restricted inmates retain alternative channels (letters, phone); in-person interviews pose security risks and no less-restrictive alternatives adequately protect security	Court: alternative channels adequate; impact and lack of viable alternatives favor the restriction, so Turner factors overall support constitutionality
4) Mootness after ODRC policy revisions and granting of Skatzes interviews	Policy changes are recent, easily reversible, and leave officials with unfettered discretion, so case remains live	Government voluntary cessation and policy reform are genuine; interviews granted, so no live controversy remains	Held moot: government self-correction deemed genuine and approval of interviews eliminated any meaningful prospective relief; declaratory/injunctive claims dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (establishes four-factor test for prison regulations affecting constitutional rights)
Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989) (clarifies Turner neutrality requirement: government objective must be legitimate and unrelated to suppression of expression)
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) (prison speech restrictions must further a substantial governmental interest unrelated to suppressing expression)
Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974) (upheld categorical limits on face-to-face media interviews where prison security justified the rule)
Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 843 (1974) (recognizes that press attention can create inmate notoriety that threatens institutional order)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (voluntary cessation doctrine and mootness principles)