Beard v. Banks

Last updated
Beard v. Banks
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 27, 2006
Decided June 28, 2006
Full case nameJeffrey A. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Ronald Banks, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
Docket no. 04-1739
Citations548 U.S. 521 ( more )
126 S. Ct. 2572; 165 L. Ed. 2d 697
Case history
PriorRespondent's motion for summary judgment granted in the District Court; reversed, 399 F.3d 134 (3d Cir. 2005); cert. granted, 546 U.S. 1015(2005)
Holding
Prison officials had adequate legal support for their policy of withholding reading material from incorrigible inmates.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy  · David Souter
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
PluralityBreyer, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Souter
ConcurrenceThomas (in judgment), joined by Scalia
DissentStevens, joined by Ginsburg
DissentGinsburg
Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983; U.S. Const. amend. I

Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the petitioner, Ronald Banks, challenged the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections policy of denying access to written material such as newspapers and magazines, to violent ("Level 2") inmates, on the grounds that the policy was a violation of his First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

The Supreme Court previously had directed Federal Courts to defer to prison officials as experts in prison administration and security in Turner v. Safley and set forth criteria to be met in order to balance the needs of the prison with an inmate's constitutional rights. [3]

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections maintains a Long Term Segregation Unit (LTSU) to segregate a small number of its most violent and unmanageable inmates, those that are the most incorrigible and who continue to commit criminal acts within the prison. [4] Level 2, the most restricted level in LTSU, does not allow inmates access to non-religious written material that is normally available, such as newspapers, magazines, or photographs. Inmates begin at Level 2, which has the most severe restrictions and deprivation, but may graduate to the less restrictive Level 1 where newspapers and magazines (but not photographs) are allowed, based on maintenance of good behavior for rehabilitation. [4]

Ronald Banks, the plaintiff, was serving a life sentence in a Pennsylvania prison and was kept in the LTSU Level 2 unit from its inception in 2000 to 2005. He was placed there originally because he was so violent that prison officials determined that he had to be segregated within the prison. In Level 2, he spent 23 hours a day in solitary confinement. [3] Banks filed suit in United States district court, alleging that this policy violated his First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech. [1] The defendant, Jeffrey Beard, served as Secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.

The Deputy Superintendent of Corrections testified in a deposition that the Department of Corrections policy was aimed at behavior modification by using written material as an incentive to encourage good behavior. [5] The prison official testified that inmates in Level 2 confinement were deprived of privileges as punishment with the incentive that if their behavior improved they would be moved to Level 1 with its added privileges. Such rules also allegedly served prison security, as the prison official described how tightly rolled newspapers could be as effective a weapon as clubs and paper can be used to start fires. [6]

Along with the documents, Secretary Beard filed a motion for summary judgment based on the undisputed facts, including those in the deposition. Although federal court rules gave Banks a chance to refute facts and contest these materials, he did not take this opportunity. Rather, he filed a separate motion for summary judgment, arguing that the policy had no rational basis. He argued that religious material could be used for dangerous purposes as easily as secular material. He also argued that the level of deprivation of Level 2 inmates was so great that it violated the Eighth Amendment. [6]

The District Court ruled that neither the cases Banks cited nor the statistics he produced supported his argument and therefore granted Beard's motion, based on the facts provided, and denied Banks' motion. It ruled that the LTSU policies were rationally related to prison interests, furthering prison security and providing rehabilitation. [1]

Banks appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed Beard's summary judgment, holding that the prison rules and regulations could not be supported by law. [7]

The points at issue in this case were whether the LTSU prison policy violates the First Amendment rights of Level 2 inmates and whether judges should allow prison officials to determine policies that are less related to security than to beliefs about behavioral management techniques and that rely on deprivation to deter misbehavior and the increased privileges in Level 1 to inspire improved behavior. [8]

Opinion of the Court

By a vote of six to two, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and upheld the Pennsylvania prison regulations banning all reading matter, except religious or legal material, from its most unmanageable inmates as legal. The decision was based in part on Bank's failure to challenge the facts as set forth by Beard. [1]

In this case, the Court held that the four-part test outlined in Turner v. Safley was met. [9]

  1. The policy was rationally related to the legitimate prison goal of motivating manageable behavior.
  2. Although inmates did not have another way of exercising their rights, they could graduate to the more privileged Level 1.
  3. Allowing inmates these rights could result in worse behavior and issues of prison security.
  4. There was no alternative way to accomplish the same goals without restricting inmate rights.

Subsequent developments

This Supreme Court ruling was seen by some as a curtailment of prisoners' rights, and a reduction of court protection of inmates. [3]

Related Research Articles

Holt v. Sarver was a court decision that was the first in a series of American common law cases that have found entire state prison systems in violation of prisoners' constitutional rights by inflicting cruel and unusual punishment.

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the constitutionality of two Missouri prison regulations. One of the prisoners' claims related to the fundamental right to marry, and the other related to freedom of speech. The court held that a regulation preventing inmates from marrying without permission violated their constitutional right to marry because it was not logically related to a legitimate penological concern, but a prohibition on inmate-to-inmate correspondence was justified by prison security needs.

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, on the matter of whether wiretapping of private telephone conversations, obtained by federal agents without a search warrant and subsequently used as evidence, constituted a violation of the target’s rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the Constitutional rights of a wiretapping target have not been violated. This decision was overturned by Katz v. United States in 1967.

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of various conditions of confinement of inmates held in federal short-term detention facilities. The Court narrowly found that while treatment of pre-trial detainees is subject to constraint by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments,[2] all of the policies challenged in the case passed constitutional scrutiny.

Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the defense of qualified immunity, under which government actors may not be sued for actions they take in connection with their offices, did not apply to a lawsuit challenging the Alabama Department of Corrections's use of the "hitching post", a punishment whereby inmates were immobilized for long periods of time.

Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that while the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment gives rise to a liberty interest in not being placed in a Supermax prison, Ohio's procedures for determining which prisoners should be placed there satisfied the requirements of due process.

Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which an incarcerated inmate sued the state of Washington over the issue of involuntary medication, specifically antipsychotic medication.

Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court ruled for the first time that state prison inmates have the standing to sue in federal court to address their grievances under the Civil Rights Act of 1871. This case followed Jones v. Cunningham (1963) allowing prison inmates to employ a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their sentencing and the conditions of their imprisonment.

Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court upheld a Free Exercise claim based on the allegations that the state of Texas had discriminated against a Buddhist prisoner by "denying him a reasonable opportunity to pursue his Buddhist faith comparable to that offered other prisoners adhering to conventional religious precepts."

Jailhouse Jesus is the colloquial term for an observed psychological phenomenon of new inmates to 'find religion' during their incarceration. Whether it comes from a genuine desire to "repent", an appeal to authority, or other factors is a subject for debate.

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a prison official's "deliberate indifference" to a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. Farmer built on two previous Supreme Court decisions addressing prison conditions, Estelle v. Gamble and Wilson v. Seiter. The decision marked the first time the Supreme Court directly addressed sexual assault in prisons.

Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court settled an intercircuit conflict regarding civil procedure for prisoners seeking redress. The court held that prisoners alleging assaults by prison guards must meet §1997e(a)'s exhaustion requirement before commencing a civil rights action.

Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223 (2001), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court rejecting the First Amendment right of prisoners to provide legal assistance to other prisoners.

Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court tested the basic constitutional right of prison inmates’ access to legal documents prior to court. Prison authorities would consequently be required to provide legal assistance or counsel to inmates, whether it be through a trained legal professional or access to a legal library. Multiple prisoners alleged that they were denied access to the courts due to lack of an adequate legal library and assistance with court related documents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Solitary confinement in the United States</span> Form of strict imprisonment in the United States

In the United States penal system, upwards of 20 percent of state and federal prison inmates and 18 percent of local jail inmates are kept in solitary confinement or another form of restrictive housing at some point during their imprisonment. Solitary confinement generally comes in one of two forms: disciplinary segregation, in which inmates are temporarily placed in solitary confinement as punishment for rulebreaking; and administrative segregation, in which prisoners deemed to be a risk to the safety of other inmates, prison staff, or to themselves are placed in solitary confinement for extended periods of time, often months or years.

Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015), was an American legal case in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an Arkansas prison policy which prohibited a Muslim prisoner from growing a short beard in accordance with his religious beliefs violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

In the United States of America, Prisoner Law refers to litigation that determines the freedoms that a prisoner either holds or loses when they are incarcerated. This includes the end of the Hands- Off Doctrine and the ability to be protected by the First, Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Furthermore, prisoner laws regulate the ways in which individuals experience privacy in a prison setting. Important case laws have arisen through time that have either hindered or protected prisoners from certain rights. Some include the Hudson v. Palmer case which held that prisoners were not protected against searches and seizures of their prison cells and Wolff v. McDonnell that stated that prisoners shall remain entitled to some of their constitutional rights even after being incarcerated.

Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978), is a landmark Supreme Court case against the Arkansas Department of Correction. The litigation lasted almost a decade, from 1969 through 1978. It was the first successful lawsuit filed by an inmate against a correctional institution. The case also clarified the Arkansas prison system's unacceptable punitive measures. Hutto v. Finney was a certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that prison inmates have no privacy rights in their cells protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court also held that an intentional deprivation of property by a state employee "does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment if an adequate postdeprivation state remedy exists," extending Parratt v. Taylor to intentional torts.

<i>Prison Legal News v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections</i>

Prison Legal News v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 890 F.3d 954, was a case before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in which the Court held that a prison's ban of the Prison Legal News (PLN) monthly magazine did not violate the First Amendment, but its failure to give notice as required by its own rules violated the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, it affirmed the decision of the District Court from which the appeal came. PLN appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on just the First Amendment issue, but the Supreme Court denied their petition for certiorari, declining to hear the case.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006).
  2. ↑ "Beard v. Banks". Duke University Law School. Archived from the original on 2007-09-03. Retrieved 2007-10-28.
  3. 1 2 3 The Supreme Court, 2005 Term — Leading Cases, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 263 (2006).
  4. 1 2 "Beard, Jeffrey (PA Dept. of Corrections) v. Banks, Ronald". Northwestern University. Archived from the original on 2007-08-08. Retrieved 2007-10-29.
  5. ↑ "Brief for the United States supporting the Petitioner". United States Department of Justice. Archived from the original on 2006-06-14. Retrieved 2007-10-29.
  6. 1 2 "Prisoners' side struggles in reading-material case". firstamendmentcenter.org. March 6, 2006. Archived from the original on 11 October 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-29.
  7. ↑ "Decision - U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit" (PDF). February 25, 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 7, 2008. Retrieved 2007-10-29.
  8. ↑ "Beard v. Banks, 04-1739 - Prisoners' rights". ACLU. Archived from the original on 7 December 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-28.
  9. ↑ "Beard v. Banks". oyez.org. Retrieved 2007-10-29.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.