Turner v. Safley
482 U.S. 78 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prison regulation that impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.
Facts:
- The Renz Correctional Institution, a Missouri state prison, housed both male and female inmates of varying security levels.
- The facility was built as a minimum security prison farm and lacked features like guard towers or walls.
- The Missouri Division of Corrections promulgated a regulation that generally prohibited correspondence between inmates at different prisons who were not immediate family members, unless a treatment team found it to be in the parties' best interest.
- At Renz, this rule was enforced as a near-total ban on non-family inmate-to-inmate correspondence.
- A second regulation was enacted that permitted an inmate to marry only with the prison superintendent's permission, which was granted only for "compelling reasons."
- Prison officials testified that a "compelling reason" was generally limited to a pregnancy or the birth of an illegitimate child.
Procedural Posture:
- Inmates at Renz Correctional Center filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, challenging the constitutionality of the prison's correspondence and marriage regulations.
- The District Court, applying a strict scrutiny standard, found both regulations unconstitutional and issued an injunction against their enforcement.
- The defendants, Missouri prison officials, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling, agreeing that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard of review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted the prison officials' petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a prison regulation that impinges on inmates' constitutional rights constitutionally valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
Yes. A prison regulation that impinges on an inmate’s constitutional rights is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. The Court rejected the strict scrutiny standard applied by the lower courts, finding it too intrusive into the complex administration of prisons. Citing cases like Pell v. Procunier and Bell v. Wolfish, the Court established a more deferential standard of reasonableness. Applying this new standard, the Court upheld the correspondence regulation, finding a rational connection between the ban and legitimate security concerns like preventing gang activity and escape plots. However, the Court struck down the marriage regulation, holding it was an 'exaggerated response' to security and rehabilitation goals. The state's justifications, such as preventing 'love triangles,' were not logically connected to a near-total ban on marriage, and less restrictive alternatives were readily available.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Stevens
No. The 'reasonably related' standard is virtually meaningless and provides insufficient protection for inmates' constitutional rights, permitting their disregard based on mere speculation by prison officials. Justice Stevens argued that this new standard is so deferential that it would uphold almost any regulation as long as a warden could imagine a plausible security concern. He dissented from the majority's decision to uphold the correspondence ban, asserting that the Court improperly engaged in its own fact-finding and ignored the district court's finding that the total ban at Renz was an exaggerated response with no record support. He concurred only in the judgment to strike down the marriage regulation, noting that even under the majority's flawed reasonableness test, the regulation could not be justified by the record.
Analysis:
This landmark case established the controlling standard of review for constitutional challenges to prison regulations. By rejecting strict scrutiny in favor of the 'reasonably related' test, Turner v. Safley significantly lowered the bar for prison officials to justify rules that impinge on inmates' fundamental rights. This decision shifted the legal balance, making it much more difficult for inmates to succeed in constitutional litigation and granting broad deference to the judgment of prison administrators on matters of security and institutional order. The four-factor test provides a framework for lower courts, but its application often results in upholding regulations that substantially burden rights like free speech and religion within the prison context.
Unlock the full brief for Turner v. Safley