Thornburgh v. Abbott

490 U.S. 401 (1989)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Regulations generally permit an inmate to subscribe to, or to receive, a publication without prior approval, but authorize the warden to reject a publication in certain circumstances. The warden may reject it 'only if it is determined detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution or if it might facilitate criminal activity.' § 540.71(b). The warden may not reject a publication 'solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social or sexual, or because its content is unpopular or repugnant.' The regulations provide procedural safeguards for both the recipient and the sender. The warden may designate staff to screen and, where appropriate, to approve incoming publications, but only the warden may reject a publication. The warden must advise the inmate promptly in writing of the reasons for the rejection, § 540.71(d), and must provide the publisher or sender with a copy of the rejection letter, § 540.71(e). The notice must refer to 'the specific article(s) or material(s) considered objectionable.' § 540.71(d). The publisher or sender may obtain an independent review of the warden's rejection decision by a timely writing to the Regional Director of the Bureau. § 540.71(e). An inmate may appeal through the Bureau's Administrative Remedy Procedure. See §§ 542.10 to 542.16. 7 The warden is instructed to permit the inmate to review the rejected material for the purpose of filing an appeal 'unless such review may provide the inmate with information of a nature which is deemed to pose a threat or detriment to the security, good order or discipline of the institution or to encourage or instruct in criminal activity.' § 540.71(d). Respondents, a class of inmates and certain publishers, have claimed that prison regulations violate their First Amendment rights in restricting access to publications when prison officials determine they are detrimental to prison security. One article about “Medical Murder” claimed that guards let asthmatic inmates die from inadequate medical treatment and facilities. The District Court upheld the regulations. The Court of Appeals, found the regulations wanting and remanded the case to the District Court for an individualized determination of the constitutionality of the 46 exclusions.