*1 DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY, CORREC JONES, CAROLINA, NORTH OF NORTH TION et al. UNION, LABOR INC. CAROLINA PRISONERS’ Argued April 75-1874. 1977 Decided June No. *2 J., opinion Court,
Rehnquist, delivered the which BuRGer, J., joined. C. and JJ., Stewart, White, Powell, Blackmun, J., concurring opinion, C. filed a p. J., Burger, 136. filed post, Stevens, opinion concurring an in part dissenting part, post, p. 138. J., dissenting opinion, joined, filed a J., Marshall, in which Brennan, post, 139. p._ L. Safron, Jacob Special Deputy Attorney North General of argued Carolina, for appellants. cause With him on the brief was Edmisten, Attorney L. General. Rufus
Norman B. Smith argued for appellee. the cause With him on the brief was Deborah Mailman. argued
Kenneth Getter the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Friedman,
Acting Solicitor Assistant General Attorney General Thornburgh, and Jerome M. Feit.* Rehnquist of the opinion Court. delivered the
MR. Justice the North Carolina regulations promulgated by Pursuant prohibited inmates from Department Correction, appellants the North Carolina soliciting join appellee, other inmates to Inc. all Union, meetings Prisoners’ Labor barred (Union), packets publica- of Union refused to deliver Union, had been in bulk several inmates for tions that mailed prisoners. The Union instituted redistribution among challenge based C. these action, § U. S. policies. alleged appellants’ prevent efforts *3 operation prisoners’ of a union the First and Four- violated of it and its members and the teenth several grant privileges refusal to Union those accorded system organizations operating other within A three- deprived equal protection the Union of of the laws. court a the court found hearing, was convened. After judge protec- speech, equal in association, merit the Union’s and free enjoined appellants preventing from arguments, tion and prisoners join from the Union and soliciting inmates to receipt publications of the “refus[ing] from Union’s they encourage membership calculated to ground are held joining.” or court also organization solicit holding meetings privilege the Union “shall be accorded neutrally applied control as under such limitations and .” We Supp. . . . 409 F. noted organizations all inmate 937. Four- jurisdiction to consider the First and probable whether unions prisoner extend labor such teenth Amendments 976. We decided that do protection. they have District not, accordingly judgment and we reverse Court. Union, Inc., urging a filed brief as amicus curiae
*The Prisoners’ affirmance.
I Prisoners’ Appellee, organization an self-denominated as a Labor Union, incorporated goal with a stated 1974, late promotion of “the purposes” labor union and the charitable “prisoners’ formation every prison jail labor union in North Carolina to . . through bargaining seek collective . improve pro- . . . ...”1 also working . . conditions. . posed to work or toward the elimination alteration practices policies which Department Correction it approve did not as a for the of, and to serve vehicle presentation By early grievances. resolution of inmate 1975, the Union had 2,000 attracted some “members” in 40 throughout different North units Carolina. State of developments, North these Carolina, unhappy with set out prevent from forming operating “union.” “membership,” While the tolerated individual State in the belief, Union, sought prohibit it inmate solicita- tion of other inmates, meetings between members Union, and bulk the Union from outside mailings concerning sources. Pursuant regulation promulgated by to a De- partment of Correction on March such solicitation and group activity proscribed. were
Suit was filed United District the Union States Court for March 18, the Eastern District of North Carolina on 1975, approximately upon date which the a week before the *4 regulation to its take claimed effect. The Union rights, engage protected and the its of members, free activities speech, association, assembly being were and infringed by no-meeting and rules. also no-solicitation alleged deprivation equal of protection of the laws corporation Incorpora These purposes are the listed in the of Articles by tion issued State of Carolina. Secretary North Collective bar gaining pay, employment, for respect inmates with hours of and other terms and illegal conditions of is under N. incarceration C. Gen. Stat. §95-98 to have Anonymous permitted Alcoholics were Jaycees and the distribu- rights, such as
meetings organizational and denied. being tion bulk that the Union was mailing material, A continuation declaratory injunction against and judgment policies restrictive were as were substantial sought, these damages.2 pursuant
°A three-judge Court, District convened dismissing 2281 and while the Union’s §§ U. S. C. attorney’s and it substantial prayers damages fees, granted injunctive appellants “permitted” found relief. court join “oppose{d] inmates to but the solicitation Union, other inmates to either solicitation join,” inmate-to-inmate noted, by correspondence. or 941. The court 409 F. Supp., id., 942: very
“[Appellants] believe that the existence sincerely the Union will the burdens of administration increase discipline control. constitute a threat essential may the Union to They apprehensive that inmates use power population bloc which establish a within or stoppages could utilized to cause work slowdowns concerted-activity.” other undesirable “no concluded, that there was The District Court however, it was experts on these and that among matters, consensus” firm “left with no conviction that an association inmates Id., The court necessarily or bad . . . at 942-943. good .” of Union appellants countenanced the bare fact felt that since whether activity, it had to allow solicitation membership, or by outsiders: necessary why it perceive are unable to “We to forbid prisons order in security essential open complaint, respecting the allegations were contained in the Other rights of outgoing prison interference with ing of mail and the visitation us, allegations and we paralegals. specific are not before certain These them further. will not deal with *5 of union membership permitted by the
solicitation This is not a of riot. There not one authorities. case suggest scintilla evidence to that Union has been the operation of disrupt utilized to the institu- Id., tions.” at 944. by questions, respecting mailing
The other the bulk the Union prisons of literature into the for the question distribution and meetings members, of inmate the District Court resolved against appellants “by protection application equal clause the fourteenth Finding amendment.” Ibid. mailing permitted bulk meetings privileges such had been Alcoholics Jaycees, Anonymous, and, one institution, Boy Scouts, “may the District appellants Court concluded that pick approval disap- not and choose or depending [their] proval message purpose group” or unless “the activity proscribed to is shown be to proper detrimental penological objectives, good subversive to or discipline, other- harmful.” wise Ibid. court appellants concluded that to Appropriate had meet this burden. injunctive relief failed thereupon ordered.3 enjoined Appellants were as follows: “(1) persons permitted Inmates and all other shall solicit be to and in- join plaintiff orally by vite other inmates printed Union written communication; however, provided, by that access to inmates outsiders solely soliciting purpose membership may except be denied may inmate members of the Union become entitled to be visited persons engaged legitimate projects free who are them in Union society extent same members of free are admitted for like purposes.
“(2) persons they Free inmates, otherwise entitled to visitation with be attorneys, paralegals, friends, relatives, etc. shall be denied access such visitation reason of their association or affiliation with the Union.
“(3) privilege The Union mailing shall accorded of bulk privilege organizations. extent that such a is accorded other “(4) The Union and its members privilege shall be accorded the holding meetings neutrally under such limitations and control as are
125 II A Court, The District we on believe, got off the foot wrong by this not giving appropriate case deference to the decisions of prison appropriate administrators and recognition to the peculiar penal and restrictive circumstances of confinement. by While litigation prison inmates conditions of concerning confinement, challenged other Eighth than the under Amend of ment, vintage, recent recognized long has awful incarceration brings necessary about "[1] withdrawal many of privileges justi limitation rights, and a retraction fied the considerations penal system.” our underlying Johnston, Price 334 266, v. U. Pell (1948); see also Procunier, McDonnell, 417 U. S. (1974); v.Wolff U. S. fact of confinement and the needs of penal impose institution on constitu limitations tional rights, including those derived from the First Amend implicit in ment, which are noted in Pell incarceration. We Procunier, supra, at 822: prison inmate retains rights those First Amendment
“[A] are not inconsistent with his prisoner status aas legitimate with the objectives penological correc- system. Thus, challenges tions to prison restrictions that are asserted to inhibit First Amendment must interests analyzed in terms legitimate policies and goals system, the corrections custody to whose care prisoner has been committed accordance with due process of law.”
Perhaps the most obvious of the First Amendment rights that necessarily are curtailed confinement are those associational First rights protects prison outside of applied organizations, to all inmate and to the extent meetings that other prisoners permitted.” itself entails a restriction concept of incarceration walls. outside to associate those freedom inmate’s obvious, penal Equally institution. of a prisoner” operational realities “status as a inmates. among on the associational dictate restrictions institution are running Because the realities wide-ranging recognized we have complex difficult, also adminis- be accorded the decisions deference to *7 Martinez, 396, Procunier 416 U. S. trators. We noted in 405 (1974): increasingly the equipped are to deal with ill
“[CJourts reform. of administration and urgent problems no more than a Judicial of that fact reflects recognition healthy where state Moreover, sense realism. further courts have a involved,
institutions are federal appropriate prison to authori- reason deference the (Footnote omitted.) ties.” Beto,
See also Cruz It is 405 U. S. context the must the claims of Union be examined.
B con- uniformly State correctional officials testified that cept prisoners’ union fraught labor was itself potential intended; dangers, whether or not such a union ille- gally, press Appellant for collective-bargaining recognition.4 beyond argument The District Court observed that “it is clear no prisoners may association operate a true union . . . .” It as labor concluded legal significance purports, that “it of no that the charter [is] lawfully accomplished.” authorize more than Supp. can be 409 F. But, activity actually actively 940 n. 1. illegal pur whether or not Union, sued purpose engage is clear that its it announced bargaining may legitimately collective ais factor which officials con in determining likely sider disruptive whether the Union is to be a in fluence, or detrimental otherwise effective administration of the prison system. North Carolina
Ralph Department Edwards, Commissioner his stated in affidavit: Correction, “The of an will result naturally creation inmate union between increasing existing friction inmates prison personnel. create can also friction between union inmates and inmates.” non-union Appellant David Jones, Department Secretary Correction, stated:
“The existence of a union of can divisive create a element within the In when population. a time already seriously units an over-crowded, such aggravate element could already tense conditions. purpose of union projects. well be worthwhile may But it if could, evident organizers the inmate recognized spokesman themselves inmates, for all make power be If union figures inmates. among the position be in to mis- successful, these inmates would use their influence. After union has become the inmate established, Depart- there would probably nothing this *8 ment could do to if existence, its even its terminate overtly activities became functioning subversive the the Department. easily Work stoppages and mutinies are inevitably foreseeable. Riots and would chaos almost result. even if the Thus, purposes the union are as stated, in complaint, for potential dangerous situation exists, a brought situation which could not be under control.”
The District Court did reject not or these beliefs as fanciful erroneous. instead, It, they noted “sincerely,” that were held and were arguably correct.5 409 Supp., F. at 942-943. With- 5The District did hold that there was “not one of evi scintilla suggest dence to that the Union has been disrupt utilized to operation Id., institutions.” at 944. however, This historical finding, does not appellants’ state that fears as disruptions to future ground- are it unreasonable, these beliefs showing out a were appellants needed Court to conclude that for the District error appel- In the burden was not on particular, to show more. “detri- affirmatively that the Union would be lants to show objectives” would constitute proper penological mental Id., security and order.” at 944A945. “present danger prov- considerations are within the Rather, peculiarly “[s]uch in expertise and, professional officials, corrections ince and of substantial evidence in record to indicate absence exaggerated response have their to these the officials ordinarily expert should considerations, courts defer to their Procunier, Pell v. judgment S., such matters.” U. necessary and result of our 827. The correct deference to permits them, informed discretion administrators difficult courts, judgments concerning and not the to make the operations in such institutional situations as this. however, particular
The District Court, gave emphasis appellants’ membership by it tolerance what viewed as undermining appellants’ position. the Union as system permitted “membership” viewed a which but prohibited (as well, inmate-to-inmate solicitation should be it noted, as “on meetings, group activities) bordering felt hypoth- defendants’ own irrational,” “[t]he esis this case is that Union existence membership dangerous, in it would they otherwise surely undertaken to forbid membership.” Supp., 409 F. have at 944. This, however, considerably appel- overstates what lants’ pure membership concession as to Appellants entails. permitted membership assumption because of the reasonable prisoner that each could he individual believe what chose to believe, and that outside individuals should be to com- able *9 municate ideas and beliefs to individual inmates. Since a less; there, opposite: the court conflicting expert opinion indicated “On evidence we are left with no firm conviction that an association of Id., necessarily good or bad .. . .” at 943. qua
member member no incurs dues obligations or prisoner —a apparently may become a member simply considering him- self a member —this position simply reflects the concept thought control, by means of prohibiting beliefs, would only not impossible. undesirable but appellants But never acquiesced in, permitted, group or ac- tivity of the Union the nature organization of a functioning of the inmates within the prison, nor did the Court District find they had. is clearly not in- irrational conclude that may dividuals believe they what but want, that concerted group or activity, solicitation pose would additional therefor, problems and unwarranted operation and frictions State’s institutions. The ban on solicitation group meetings, therefore, rationally related reasonable, objectives indeed adminis- central, Procunier, tration. Pell supra, Cf. v. at 822.
C First Amendment, invocation whether speech associational, asserted or does rights change are this analysis. In an context, inmate does not retain those First Amendment that are "inconsistent with his status prisoner objectives as a with the legitimate penological Procunier, Pell system.” corrections v. at 822. supra, Prisons, it is differ obvious, respects numerous from free society. They, begin with, are populated, involuntarily, by people who have been found have violated more of one criminal orderly laws established society gov- its In seeking ernance. a “mutual accommodation between objectives institutional needs and prisons] provi- [of sions of the Constitution that general application,” McDonnell, S., has repeat- Wolff edly recognized major the need for prisoner’s restrictions id., See, g., e. rights. 561-562; York, Lanza New U. These restrictions have applied as well *10 130 g., implicated. e. Amendment values were See, First
where Martinez, 416 396 Procunier, Procunier U. S. supra; Pell v. Fano, 427 215 U. S. (1974); Meachum v. speech restrictions on potential
An examination under imposed by regulations that have been association imposed are that the restrictions rea challenge, demonstrates with the inmates' status as and are consistent sonable, operational prisoners legitimate and with the considerations speech To First Amendment begin with, the institution. Mail are not barely implicated rights in this case.6 only question respecting the mail themselves implicated; mailings of bulk The of bulk mailings.7 advantages is that cheaper and conven by the Union are those rates cheaper bulk ience. While the District relied on protection infra, finding equal violation, rates in an mailing not 133, losing advantages it is clear that these cost does ability hampered has inmates to communi State banning grievances cate their to correctional officials. In Union solicitation ways organization, merely appellants have affected one of several relief, may complaints to, from which inmates voice their and seek through grievance procedure which officials. There exists an inmate concerning prison complaints correctional con officials are informed about may ditions, through action be secured. Affidavit which remedial See path Edwards, App. presumably 127. effective of Director With grievances, for the the fact that the Union’s available transmission grievance procedures might pro be more “desirable” does not convert the Martinez, hibitory regulations acts. Procunier v. into unconstitutional See Spock, (1976) (1974); 424 U. S. cf. Greer J., concurring). (Powell, only alleged prohibition mail denied the complaint that the bulk equal protection of the laws: Union the Prisoners’ Union Newsletter to
“The refusal Defendants allow distribution, Jaycee allowing the Newsletter to in bundles for while arrive Plaintiff’s in the same manner violates Fourteenth arrive equal right protection of the laws.” question only Court, likewise, the bulk mail dealt with
The District Equal Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 409 terms of the Protection Supp., 944. F.
fundamentally
implicate
speech
values. Since
free
avenues of outside
informational
flow
Union remain
*11
available,
prohibition
on bulk
reasonable in the
mailing,
absence of First Amendment
remains reasona
considerations,
Procunier,
ble.8
Pell
Washington
Cf.
supra;
Saxbe v.
Co.,
Post
Nor does the on inmate-to-inmate solicitation membership trench untowardly on the inmates’ First speech Amendment rights. membership Solicitation of itself good involves a deal more simple expression than the by The mailing ban on bulk the Union does not extend to individual mailings to individual affidavit, inmates. In his Edwards stated: Director “They permitted publications are directly, they to receive sent them but to prohibited are receiving from packets any of material from unions or source for redistribution. Department’s This is in accordance with the policy requiring publication directly mailed to inmates to be from [s] sent publisher. security A problem serious result if inmates could would packets receive they of material and then redistribute them as see fit. impossible would be Department every magazine, for the inspect to every book, etc., placed to insure that no contraband had been inside the publication. exception regard Jaycees recognized to is based on the fact Jaycees community are substantial citizens from the free unlikely who are most attempt smuggle union contraband into the or propaganda disseminate legitimate purposes subversive of the of the prison system.” App. 129. Department See also N. Guidebook, C. of Correction Commissioner’s by Inmates, Administrative App. Directives —Publications Received 138- 139. any the State interfering As has disavowed intention of correspondence between outsiders and individual inmates in Union which discussed, questions matters are we do not have to First discuss right inmates, outsiders, Martinez, supra, or Amendment see Procunier v. 408-409, prohibition in the context of a total the communi apparently cation of information about the Union. The District Court thought correspondence prohibited, that solicitation means of even general not, Supp., if the discussion of Union affairs is at 941. F. press point here, alleged not Union does and it is not in its com but, clearly, plaint, appellants permitted prohibit if the are solicitation they activities, may prohibit solicitation activities means which use mails. disadvantages of a advantages as to the individual views collectively engage it is an invitation views; union its officials are If the activity. prohibited legitimately in activity within organized union to control otherwise entitled on solicitation such prohibition prison walls, of First impermissible on account activity not then made prohibition is then for such a considerations, Procunier, S., necessary. Pell v. but only reasonable at 822. more perhaps while rights,
First Amendment associational likewise regulatory prohibitions, directly implicated by the way to the reasonable considerations give must already noted, As numerous associational management. They by the realities of confinement. necessarily curtailed *12 officials, in the be whenever the
may curtailed institution’s reasonably of their informed conclude that exercise discretion, other- associations, through group meetings whether or such possess to order or wise, disruption prison the likelihood stability, legitimate penological interfere with the or otherwise objectives prison As noted Pell the environment. we Procunier, supra, goals at “central to all other corrections security within the institutional consideration of internal the corrections facilities themselves.”
Appellant presence, per- concluded that officials prisoners’ union would haps objectives, even a labor be security order 127. prisons, supra, detrimental to in the say they conclusively to not enough have been wrong preserving shown to in this The interest view. authority prisons life, Prison order and is self-evident. between the and between the relations inmates themselves ever-present officials or contain staff, inmates and potential violent confrontation and conflagration. Wolff McDonnell, S., Responsible prison at 561-562. U. permitted steps must be take reasonable officials forestall permitted must be threat, they a to act before the such they time when can compile a dossier on the eve of a riot.9 prisoners’ case union, where the focus is on the presentation of grievances to, and encouragement adversary relations with, institution surely officials would high rank anyone’s potential list of spots. trouble If appellants’ views possible as to the detrimental effects of the organiza- tional activities Union are reasonable, as we conclude they are, then the regulations are drafted no more broadly than they need perceived be meet the threat —which stems directly from group meetings and group organizational activi- ties of the Union. Martinez, Cf. Procunier v. S.,U. 412-416. When weighed against the First Amendment rights asserted, these institutional reasons are sufficiently weighty to prevail.
D The District Court rested Equal on the Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike appellants’ down pro- hibition against receipt and distribution of bulk mail from prohibition Union as well as the meetings of Union among It felt inmates. this was a denial of equal protec- tion bulk mailing because and meeting rights had been ex- tended the Jaycees, Alcoholics Anonymous, Boy and the Scouts. just The court felt as outside the prison, may “government pick and choose depending upon ap- its proval disapproval message purpose group,” *13 Supp., 409 at so, too, appellants F. could not choose among groups without first demonstrating activity proscribed that the proper is “detrimental penological objectives, subversive to good discipline, or otherwise harmful.” Ibid. analysis faulty
This for two reasons. The District Court 9 prison The informed discretion of officials that potential there is danger may limiting rights though be sufficient for showing even might “unimpressive justification if . . . governmental submitted as personal among restriction of communication general members of the public.” Procunier, (1974). Pell 417 U. S. v. 825 134
erroneously prison case as if the treated this environment “public essentially were a forum.” We observed last Term in political meetings a ban on Dix upholding at Fort that a public such a military Government enclave base was a forum. Greer Spock, (1976). stated, S. 828 We U. id., 10: at n.
“The fact speakers that other civilian and entertainers had been invited to Dix did appear sometimes Fort public not of itself to convert Fort Dix into a forum serve Fifth upon political or to confer a First or candidates there. The right campaigns their to conduct military decision of civilian lecture authorities a drug by visiting preacher on religious service abuse, sup- would be chapel, base or a rock musical concert surely Dix did not portive military Fort mission of any prevent powerless leave the authorities thereafter to any subject from Dix to entering speak civilian Fort whatever.” public
A into a forum may easily be no more converted only military appellants than a need demonstrate base. Thus organizational a rational basis for their between distinctions groups. City Firefighters, Cf. Charlotte U. S. why exactly Here, appellants’ affidavits indicate Jaycees Anonymous have been allowed Alcoholics and the serving a prison. Both were seen as operate within the working harmony goals with the rehabilitative purpose, both had been de- prison administrators, desires security pose any termined not to threat to the order The affidavits indicate the administra- institution.10 objectives Jaycees listed the for which the had Director Edwards system, namely “pro been allowed within the North Carolina community representatives with stable ductive association inmates] [of projects community accomplishment and the of service . . . .” When objectives cease, organization oppor- “the these functions of the and its *14 view tors’ of the Union critically in differed both these respects.11
Those conclusions are not unreasonable. Prison adminis- trators may surely Jaycees conclude and Alcoholics Anonymous in differ respects fundamental from appellee Union, group past with speak no of, and with the avowed intent to pursue an adversary relationship with officials. Indeed, it would be enough to distinguish the Union from Al- coholics Anonymous to note that purpose chartered tunities to organization assemble an would also cease.” Affidavit of Director Edwards, App. 125. respect With Anony- to Alcoholics mous, stated, id., he at 126: objectives “The Anonymous the Alcoholics Program provide are to therapeutic support, insight, opportunity and an productive sharing experiences among those who have encountered the deteriorative effects of alcoholism. Anonymous Alcoholics peer structured pressure on a basis begins which while the individual client is confined and is intended to have carry over Anonymous effects into community.” Alcoholic groups in the free respect With Anonymous Jaycees, Alcoholics and the Director Edwards stated, ibid.: goals objectives “The and the Anonymous the Alcoholics [both] Jayeee Program presented meaningful were to correctional staff as positive
courses of action goals productive to the relative restoration active, of offenders to participation community. goals lawful organizations of both scrutinized, evaluated, Oper- approved. [were] guidelines ational up following approval have been drawn each instance certify primary objective system main- of the correctional —to security tain order and abridged operation not be of these —would programs within the confines units.” Opposed to these allowing groups articulated reasons for is his these respect Union, statement with ibid.: “The Division of Prisons was unable to validate a substantive rehabilita- purpose purpose design tion or associative organization. accept organizational objectives prisoner’s To of a union would be to approve organization design purpose an compromise whose would security system.” the order and of the correctional supra, See also at 127. *15 illegal under pursued prison, in the Union, apparently Carolina law.12
North “public forum,” not a prison emphatically is most Since Greer v. cf. appellants sufficient, of these reasonable beliefs Firefighters, supra. Charlotte supra; City Spock, of show- a demonstrable requirement further of District Court’s in harmful is inconsistent ing that the Union was fact dis- to the informed pay should the deference federal courts Martinez, S., Procunier v. prison cretion of officials. decision such as precisely this, It is matters at 405. operate be allowed to many groups should as to which of based with claims confronted prison walls, where, within the allow courts should Equal Clause, Protection it unless discretion, full of administrators the latitude prison sp similar firmly groups are stated that the two can surely not the case here. That is has been abused. discretion prison requires which nothing in the Constitution There is alike where differentiation groups to treat all inmate officials dis- threat of institutional necessary avoid an imminent is challenged appellants regulations or ruption violence. nor Four- neither the First District Court offended in the holding of that court Amendment, judgment and the teenth contrary Reversed. Burger, concurring. Mr. Chief Justice fully opinion. I concur in the Court’s in the federal long in a line cases This is another but authority States questions concerning the raising courts argument that 1, supra. acknowledged at n. It was oral See in the goal, as stated since reiterated the Union’s Union newsletter has whereby cards charter, has authorization and that the newsletter contained said Union agents representatives inmate could “authorize the agent all matters bargaining represent act as a collective me terms employment and all other pay, hours of pertaining to rates of Arg. 34r-35. Tr. of Oral Record 25. conditions of incarceration.” See to regulate and administer matters peculiarly local in nature. Too often there is confusion as to what decides type case. The issue here, course, not whether prisoner “unions” are “good” “bad,” but, rather, whether the Federal Constitution prohibits state officials from deciding exclude such organizations from society in their carry efforts to out one of the most vexipg of all responsibilities state of operating a penological —that In institution. that it determining does we do not suggest not, *16 prison officials or permit not not could such should inmate organizations, only but that the Constitution does not require them to do so. problems solutions arising within correctional in
stitutions will never easy. or simple by Prisons, definition, are closed populated by societies individuals who have dem onstrated their inability, refusal, or their to conform conduct to the norms by society. demanded a civilized Of necessity, rules far different imposed from those on society large must prevail prison within walls. The federal courts, as we equipped have noted, by experience often are not or other guess” wise to “second legislatures the decisions state and except administrators in this sensitive in the area most extraordinary This recognition, circumstances. course, is imply prisoner stripped not that a constitutional does all through gates. protection passes prison’s he Indeed, as has on numerous this Court made clear occasions protect and other federal laws certain basic Constitution Smith, E. g., Bounds v. rights of inmates. U. S. 817 healthy no (1977). Rather, it “reflects more than sense part our to understand needed reforms realism” prison come, administration must not from in the area expertise but from those with most courts, the federal administrators themselves. See Pro in this field— Martinez, And, U. S. cunier v. enlightened correctional years, administrators dozen last half in the area of significant strides reform. made have procedures instituted grievance respect are the Notable pilot experiments, after Bureau of Prisons* the Federal Carolina, including North now a number of States complaints register their permit which I while However, relief. judicial non and obtain officials urged indeed their adoption, procedures, applaud such -1973, 59 on the Federal Judicial Report Burger, W. Branch-— procedures that the suggest I not (1973), do A. A. B. J. pass not we do Similarly, mandated. constitutionally whether utility” organizations, inmate today “social on the only on but otherwise, “unions” they be characterized permit prison officials to requires Constitution whether the operation. their dissenting part Stevens, concurring
Mr. Justice in part. extremely narrow.
My disagreement with the Court on discussion between restraint Court has sanctioned belong- disadvantages advantages inmates on the relative of inmate-to- prohibition union. The prisoners’ to a ing as “an upholds solicitation which defined *17 prohibited legitimately in a collectively engage invitation Ante, it clear that has made at 132. The Court activity.” ante, activity, at not such an membership in a union is mere regula- “no-solicitation language appellants’ of 128-129. by indicate compiled Federal Bureau of Prisons the *Statistics by brought to 5,000 complaints inmates were alone, than in more grievance pursuant prison officials the attention of federal complaints were ulti- of these procedures. Approximately one-fourth Preliminary figures for inmate. mately in of the resolved favor it is grievance procedures; greater utilization of indicate an even by registered 10,000 complaints were than that more estimated 31-32, n. 15. as Amicus Curiae year. Brief for United States during that appears to have slowed procedure grievance development this filed in the federal prisoner petitions federal growth of the rate of down Office Director, Administrative Report 1975 Annual courts. district XI48-XI51. Courts of the United States however, Therefore,
tion” somewhat broader.* is, instead ante, concluding the entire I regulation is valid, would hold it invalid to the extent that it exceeds Court’s definition.
I join portions of the opinion Court’s concerning bulk mailing union claims. meeting
Me. Marshall, Justice whom Mr. Justice Brennan with joins, dissenting. was a very long prisoners
There not when were time, ago, so regarded as State,” having only “slave “not forfeited [s] personal but all rights [their] . . liberty, . [their] Ruffin Commonwealth, v. years, 62 Va. In 790, 796 recent however, the courts increasingly rejected view, have corollary which keep it the holds that courts their should Court, “hands off” in Today, institutions.1 however, apparent of a organization fear reform that has temerity to call itself “union,” step takes a backwards giant toward conception that discredited of prisoners’ rights and role of I prove the courts. decline to I join hope what will to be temporary retreat.
I Martinez, In I forth (1974), Procunier set my understanding some Amendment length the First rights I advanced The fundamental tenet inmates. is simply . First prisoner stated: “A . basic does shed . all prison gate. at the ‘retains he Rather, the rights ordinary except expressly, an citizen those necessary from him law.’ implication, taken Coffin custody Department prohibited
*“Persons of Correction any soliciting membership from union.” other inmates about *18 Jurisdictional Statement 38. demise, exposition and its see
1 For brief of the “hands-off” doctrine Rights Fox, Prisoners, 63 P. The First Amendment of Crim. C. & S. J. L. (1972). 162
140 Id., 422 1944).” at (CA6 445 Reichard, 443, F. 2d 143 restric- that a this tenet follows from (concurring opinion). a restric- prisoners, like of rights Amendment tion on First a by only justified be “can nonprisoners, of tion on rights the means showing that interest and government substantial unnecessarily purpose are not chosen effectuate State's Id., This does at 423. freedoms.” personal of restrictive be constitu- that would expressive conduct any mean that necessarily protected prison protected outside tionally First Amendment I in Martinez: inside; “[T]he as also stated special applied “in light in ‘be must each context James, environment,”' the . . . v. Ready characteristics (1972), exigencies governing 180 169, 408 S.U. than those greater are different from and persons prisons in Id., But the basic persons without.” at 424. governing analysis requirement mode First Amendment —the imperatively speech supported be “reasons restrictions be ibid.—should not justifying particular deprivation,” are simply altered because the First Amendment claimants incarcerated. analytic least as rejects framework, Court at today applies prisoners something
it right to the associate 2 prison In the exer- testing called a “union.” restrictions on only cise of that the restrictions right the asks whether “rationally objectives related to the . . . admin- ante, istration,” 129, and whether the reasons offered “conclusively defense restrictions have been shown ante, wrong,” proclaiming at 132. While faithfulness Procunier, (1974), of Pell teaching “ v. U. S. First ‘a inmate retains those ” ante, prisoner,' are not inconsistent with his status as a ultimately upholds the challenged regulations the Court protects right That the First Amendment now to associate g., Kusper Pontikes, See, e. (1973); well established. 51S. Alabama, NAACP U. S.
141 apply on a that restriction ground any would they “are consistent with the inmates’ status freedom: ante, prisoners,” at 130. opinion justifies Court’s its wholesale aban-
Nothing
analysis.
principles of First Amendment
donment of traditional
I
“the realities of
realize,
course,
running
ante,
complex
difficult,”
126,
and
institution are
“
considerably
‘professional
possess
officers
more
correctional
” ante,
judges.
than do
expertise,’
128,
management
way
I
minimize either
seriousness
any
do not in
But
does
problems
expertise.
it
significance
or the
city
or a
running”
“the realities
a school
seem me that
difficult,”
charged
and that
“complex
are also
those
council-
college presidents, mayors,
principals,
these tasks —
possess special
personnel
enforcement
men, and law
—also
3
in no First
case
“professional expertise,”
Yet
judgment
I
has the
of which
am aware
Court deferred
simply
judgment
because their
was “rational.”
of such officials
James,
Des
(1972);
408 U.
Tinker
Healy
Cf.
v.
S.
v.
Louisiana,
Dist.,
Cox
(1969);
Moines School
meat restriction expressive activity. I approach has precisely advocate the one this Court
followed in In involving prisoners. other cases Avery, Johnson example, S. 483 U. (1969), expressly rationality rule acknowledged writ from fellow prohibited aiding issue which writers prisoners in never- preparing legal papers, id., at 488. We theless concluded that the rule unconstitutional because impact In prisoners’ right its courts. access Washington, Lee v. S. 333 we not even U. did (1968), inquire prisoners by rational, segregating whether race was although could be southern argued integration it inmates; would among lead disorder held we *21 any prohibited by event was Fourteenth segregation Smith, And in Bounds v. 430 U. (1977); Amendment. S. 817 Beto, McDonnell, v. 539 and Cruz (1974); 418 U. Wolff By approach of Lee. (1972), S. 319 we followed the “a repeatedly word have reaffirmed that deed, then, we to judicial encompass any restraint cannot failure policy When a claims .... cognizance take of valid constitutional constitu- fundamental practice offends a regulation duty to discharge courts will their tional federal guarantee, Martinez, 416 Procunier protect rights.” constitutional U. at 405. S.,
II that traditional First established is Once it dispute cases, prisoners’-rights applicable principles found only not three-judge court easily resolved. here is that suggest evidence to “not one scintilla that there of the operation disrupt utilized to had been Union as the (EDNC Supp. 937, 1976), F. institutions,” no evi- it also found 5,n. ante, at acknowledges, to operate Union] intend to [the the inmates “that dence proper with the interests of hamper government,” and interfere posed “present 409 F. the Union Supp., at danger id., In order,” 945. find- security at face these it that the ings, argued cannot be restrictions on the Union are justified].” “imperatively barring from regulation fellow soliciting
prisoners join the Union is particularly vulnerable to attack. Judge As the late Craven stated for the below: “To court join an inmate to a union permit inviting his others forbid Id., join borders on the irrational.” at 943. The irration- perhaps ality regulation best demonstrated the fact the Court does defend it; Brother rather, my ante, suggests, at 138-139, the Court defends some Stevens “ hypothetical regulation banning collectively 'an invitation to legitimately Ante, engage prohibited activity.’ 132”; ante, see also ban (discussing on “concerted activ- group ity, therefor”). or solicitation Because regulation the actual needlessly at issue here bars solicitation activity -join- for an — ing the Union —which is not and presumably could not be I prohibited,5 would hold it unconstitutional.
Once the outlawing rule solicitation invalidated, prohibition on bulk mailing by the Union must with it. fall Since North Carolina allows the Union to mail its newsletters prisoners individually, cannot State claim bulk keep mail rule serves to “subversive material” out of the *22 prison. Rather, primary purpose must to rule be supplement the ban solicitation;6 on overturning that ban express concerning 5 1 no view orderly, extent to which concerted protected prison. activities are in This issue has length been addressed at report, the ABA Joint Committee Standard 6.4 Commentary. and § only justification The other offered for the prevent rule is to con being smuggled traband prisons. from Nothing into in the record remotely suggests personnel the outside associated with the Union mailing purpose. would use bulk for this Moreover, the solution to the bulk excluding force from the rationale sap all
would
would then be
as one that
mailings. The exclusion
left
its
exercising
cost
Union
unnecessarily increases
groups
rights7
allowing
First Amendment
while
inmate
price.
at
lower
Jaycees
rights
such as the
to exercise their
a
unconstitutional.
would, therefore,
plainly
It
be
meetings
from holding
the Union
regulation prohibiting
reg-
than
justifiable
within the
somewhat more
permitted
the Union is
previously
ulations
considered. Once
prisons.
operational within the
meetings
to hold
will
it
become
union
operating
Appellants’
fears
of an
leaders
influence”
that the
position
“would
to misuse
and
their
concerted activities
disruptive,
itself could
engage
Union
App.
are
prisons,
tension
increase
within
entirely
note, however,
important
fanciful.
who
expert
correctional
appellee’s
witnesses,
two
both
officers
such
testified that
organizations,
had
with inmate reform
dealt
id.,
their
play
prisons,
role in
groups actually
a constructive
favor
weight
professional opinion
38, 90-95.
seems
appellants
the risks
fear
groups.8
such
recognizing
Moreover,
how
any
no matter
organization,
are inherent
any organi-
without
indeed,
innocuous its stated
even
goals;
capable
inevitably
become leaders
zations some
will
alleged
danger
prohibit
inspect
mailings,
bulk
is to
not to
contraband
them.
130-131,
speech
Contrary
ante,
free
values
assertion,
Court’s
definitely
implicated by
regulation
and effect is
purpose
most
whose
costly.
g., Murdock
Cf., e.
to make the exercise of First Amendment
Grosjean
Co.,
Pennsylvania,
(1943);
Press
American
S.
(1936).
146 id., their “misus[ing] influence,” 102-103,9 and at 84-86, . id., activity some concerted occur, can still at 118-119. by But if risks to- posed unique it, even the Union were appellants’ widely and even if fear the Union were more professionals, prohibition shared on Union meet ings still could not survive constitutional attack. The central century lesson of over adjudication a half of First Amendment is that freedom is enterprise, a and that sometimes hazardous the Constitution requires bear the State to certain risks to preserve liberty. g., our Whitney e. 274 See, California, v. U. 357, S. (1927) (Brandéis, concurring); 375-378 J., Chicago, Terminiello 1 v. 337 U. Tinker Des S. (1949); Dist., School (1969). Moines ABA Joint S. 503 As the Committee, supra, put it: “The doubts risks raised and a creating open prison humane and accepted must* be as cost of society; our is self-definitionally risk- democracy 10 form of taking government.” To my mind, therefore, appellants fact wholly irrationally have not acted banning dispositive. Union I meetings is believe Rather, as where, here, meetings pose would not an immediate and substantial threat func rehabilitative security tions of the prisons, the First guarantees Union members right associate and the Fourteenth freely, Amendment guarantees them right treated favorably as members of other organizations. can surely regulate
State time, place, manner of the meetings, perhaps can monitor them to assure that disruptions planned, are not State but cannot outlaw such altogether. assemblies
9 Note, Bargaining See Restructuring also in Correctional Institutions: the Relation between the Authority, Inmate the Prison 81 L. Yale J. leadership concern over inmate has been advanced to oppose numerous g., Avery, E. reforms. Johnson 393 U. S. (1969) (White, J., dissenting); Washington Co., Saxbe v. Post (1974) (Powell, J., dissenting) (rejecting argument). U. 866-869 report ABA Joint Committee 419.
III
were to
analysis adopted
today’s
decision
If the mode
stripped
be
eventually would
followed, prisoners
be generally
privi-
only
retain
those
rights,
constitutional
and would
all
discretion,”
“informed
prison officials,
that
their
leges
sole
constraint
recognize.
constitutional
deigned
ra-
they
requirement
a
act
prison officials would
that
be
tionally.
Ironically, prisoners
right
left with a
would be
Smith,
(1977);
courts, see Bounds v.
430 U. S.
access
no substantive
Avery,
(1969),