. Id., at 408. Most of the female inmates were medium and maximum security offenders, while most of the male inmates were minimum security offenders. Footnote 14 U.S. 78, 94] 3 id., at 158. To the extent that this Court affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals, I concur in its opinion. review to apply in cases "involving questions of `prisoners' rights.'" U.S. 119 ] Superintendent Turner had not experienced any problem with gang warfare at Renz. U.S. 520 These alternative means of communication did not, however, make the prison regulation a "time, place, or manner" restriction in any ordinary sense of the term. the language about deference and security is set to one side, the Court's erratic use of the record to affirm the Court of Appeals only partially may rest on an unarticulated assumption that the marital state is fundamentally different from the exchange of mail in the satisfaction, solace, and support it affords to a confined inmate. So I think we're all basically in agreement that even though it is a problem to have open correspondence, the reason that we don't do it is simply staff time." In determining whether this regulation impermissibly burdens the right to marry, we note initially that the regulation prohibits marriages between inmates and civilians, as well as marriages between inmates. See Camp & Camp, supra, at 130 (noting "frequent" use of coded correspondence by gang members in federal prison); see also Brief for State of Texas as Amicus Curiae 7-9. Prison officials testified that it would be impossible to read every piece of inmate-to-inmate correspondence, 3 Tr. 417 The District Court certified respondents as a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. We granted certiorari, 154-155. Footnote * -824. [482 As our previous decisions make clear, however, the Constitution "does not mandate a `lowest common denominator' security standard, whereby a practice permitted at one penal institution must be permitted at all institutions." (1984), a ban on contact visits was upheld on the ground that "responsible, experienced administrators have determined, in their sound discretion, that such visits will jeopardize the security of the facility," and the regulation was "reasonably related" to these security concerns. Standard 2-5328 requires clear and convincing evidence to justify "limitations for reasons of public safety or facility order and security" on the volume, "length, language, content or source" of mail which an inmate may send or receive. Finally, JUSTICE STEVENS complains that Renz' ban on inmate correspondence cannot be reasonably related to legitimate corrections goals because it is more restrictive than the rule at other Missouri institutions. [482 First, there must be a "valid, rational connection" between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it. warden produces a plausible security concern and a deferential trial court is able to discern a logical connection between that concern and the challenged regulation. toward female inmates, ante, at 99, but rejects the same court's factual findings on the correspondence regulation. Abnormal Kitchen Knives: Creating the Material Conditions Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. We are aware of no place in the record where prison officials testified that such ready alternatives would not fully satisfy their security concerns. Put another way, "[i]n order to establish a claim of deliberate indifference to medical need, the need must be both apparent and serious, and the denial of attention must be both deliberate and without legitimate penological objective." . The Missouri regulation, however, represents an Floyd R. Finch, Jr., argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents. Free Speech Rights of Prisoners - Findlaw 28 On this point, the majority holds: the Department has broad discretion to deny entry of any materials it determines may threaten legitimate penological interests, without exception for public records. Majority at 1058. Because there was "no evidence" that officials had exaggerated their response to the security problem, the Court held that "the considered judgment of these experts must control in the absence of prohibitions far more sweeping than those involved here." Id., at 259-260. 441 Moreover, the correspondence regulation does not deprive prisoners of all means of expression. See also id., at 187. 2 receive in TDCJ were now prohibited. U.S. 78, 99] [482 App. U.S. 78, 102] Renz is used on occasion to provide protective custody for inmates from other prisons in the Missouri system. Leagle.com U.S. 953 Witnesses stated that the Missouri Division of Corrections had a growing problem with prison gangs, and that restricting communications among gang members, both by transferring gang members to different institutions and by restricting their correspondence, was an important element in combating this problem. This is not a case in which it is particularly helpful to begin by determining the "proper" standard of review, as if the result of that preliminary activity would somehow lighten the Court's duty to decide this case.
Carebara Diversa Queen, Articles L