procunier
martinez
argued
december
decided
april
appellees
prison
inmates
brought
class
action
challenging
prisoner
mail
censorship
regulations
issued
director
california
department
corrections
ban
use
law
students
legal
paraprofessionals
conduct
interviews
inmates
mail
censorship
regulations
inter
alia
proscribed
inmate
correspondence
unduly
complain
ed
magnif
ied
grievances
express
ed
inflammatory
political
racial
religious
views
beliefs
contained
matter
deemed
defamatory
otherwise
inappropriate
district
held
regulations
unconstitutional
first
amendment
void
vagueness
violative
fourteenth
amendment
guarantee
procedural
due
process
enjoined
continued
enforcement
required
inmate
notified
rejection
correspondence
author
correspondence
allowed
protest
decision
secure
review
prison
official
original
censor
district
also
held
ban
use
law
students
legal
paraprofessionals
conduct
interviews
inmates
abridged
right
access
courts
enjoined
continued
enforcement
appellants
contend
district
abstained
deciding
constitutionality
mail
censorship
regulations
held
district
err
refusing
abstain
deciding
constitutionality
mail
censorship
regulations
pp
censorship
direct
personal
correspondence
involves
incidental
restrictions
right
free
speech
prisoners
correspondents
justified
following
criteria
met
must
one
important
substantial
governmental
interests
security
order
rehabilitation
inmates
must
greater
necessary
legitimate
governmental
interest
involved
pp
standard
invalidation
mail
censorship
regulations
district
correct
pp
decision
censor
withhold
delivery
particular
letter
must
accompanied
minimum
procedural
safeguards
arbitrariness
error
requirements
specified
district
unduly
burdensome
pp
ban
interviews
conducted
law
students
legal
paraprofessionals
limited
prospective
interviewers
posed
colorable
threat
security
inmates
thought
especially
dangerous
created
arbitrary
distinction
law
students
employed
attorneys
associated
law
school
programs
ban
operate
constituted
unjustifiable
restriction
inmates
right
access
courts
johnson
avery
pp
powell
delivered
opinion
burger
brennan
stewart
white
marshall
blackmun
rehnquist
joined
marshall
filed
concurring
opinion
brennan
joined
part
ii
douglas
joined
post
douglas
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
post
eric
collins
deputy
attorney
general
california
argued
cause
appellants
briefs
evelle
younger
attorney
general
edward
hinz
chief
assistant
attorney
general
doris
maier
assistant
attorney
general
robert
granucci
thomas
brady
deputy
attorneys
general
william
bennett
turner
argued
cause
appellees
brief
mario
obledo
sanford
jay
rosen
anthony
amsterdam
jack
greenberg
james
nabrit
iii
stanley
bass
lowell
johnston
alice
daniel
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
william
fry
national
paralegal
institute
sheldon
krantz
stephen
joel
trachtenberg
center
criminal
justice
boston
university
school
law
justice
powell
delivered
opinion
case
concerns
constitutionality
certain
regulations
promulgated
appellant
procunier
capacity
director
california
department
corrections
appellees
brought
class
action
behalf
inmates
penal
institutions
department
jurisdiction
challenge
rules
relating
censorship
prisoner
mail
ban
use
law
students
legal
paraprofessionals
conduct
interviews
inmates
pursuant
district
convened
hear
appellees
request
declaratory
injunctive
relief
entered
summary
judgment
enjoining
continued
enforcement
rules
question
ordering
appellants
submit
new
regulations
approval
supp
nd
cal
appellants
first
revisions
resulted
counterproposals
appellees
order
issued
may
requiring
modification
proposed
rules
second
set
revised
regulations
approved
district
july
appellees
objections
first
proposed
revisions
department
regulations
pending
district
appellants
brought
appeal
contest
decision
holding
original
regulations
unconstitutional
noted
probable
jurisdiction
affirm
first
consider
constitutionality
director
rules
restricting
personal
correspondence
prison
inmates
regulations
correspondence
inmates
california
penal
institutions
persons
licensed
attorneys
holders
public
office
censored
nonconformity
certain
standards
rule
stated
department
general
premise
personal
correspondence
prisoners
privilege
right
detailed
regulations
implemented
department
policy
rule
directed
inmates
write
letters
unduly
complain
magnify
grievances
rule
defined
contraband
writings
expressing
inflammatory
political
racial
religious
views
beliefs
finally
rule
provided
inmates
may
send
receive
letters
pertain
criminal
activity
lewd
obscene
defamatory
contain
foreign
matter
otherwise
inappropriate
prison
employees
screened
incoming
outgoing
personal
mail
violations
regulations
criteria
provided
help
members
mailroom
staff
decide
whether
particular
letter
contravened
prison
rule
policy
prison
employee
found
letter
objectionable
take
one
following
actions
refuse
mail
deliver
letter
return
author
submit
disciplinary
report
lead
suspension
mail
privileges
sanctions
place
copy
letter
summary
contents
prisoner
file
might
factor
determining
inmate
work
housing
assignments
setting
date
parole
eligibility
district
held
regulations
relating
prisoner
mail
authorized
censorship
protected
expression
without
adequate
justification
violation
first
amendment
void
vagueness
also
noted
regulations
failed
provide
minimum
procedural
safeguards
error
arbitrariness
censorship
inmate
correspondence
consequently
enjoined
continued
enforcement
appellants
contended
district
abstained
deciding
questions
appellants
advanced
reason
abstention
assertion
federal
defer
california
courts
basis
comity
district
properly
rejected
suggestion
noting
mere
possibility
state
might
declare
prison
regulations
unconstitutional
ground
abstention
wisconsin
constantineau
appellants
contend
vacate
judgment
remand
case
district
instructions
abstain
basis
two
arguments
presented
first
contend
vagueness
challenge
uninterpreted
state
statute
regulation
proper
case
abstention
according
appellants
statement
district
regulations
vague
constitutes
compelling
reason
abstention
brief
appellants
made
plain
baggett
bullitt
however
every
vagueness
challenge
uninterpreted
state
statute
regulation
constitutes
proper
case
abstention
need
decide
whether
appellants
contention
controlled
analysis
baggett
short
answer
argument
regulations
neither
challenged
invalidated
solely
ground
vagueness
appellees
also
asserted
district
found
rules
relating
prisoner
mail
permitted
censorship
constitutionally
protected
expression
without
adequate
justification
light
successful
first
amendment
attack
regulations
district
conclusion
also
unconstitutionally
vague
hardly
constitutes
compelling
reason
abstention
second
ground
abstention
appellants
rely
cal
penal
code
assures
prisoners
right
receive
books
magazines
periodicals
although
advance
argument
district
appellants
contend
interpretation
statute
state
courts
application
regulations
governing
prisoner
mail
might
avoid
modify
constitutional
questions
decided
thus
appellants
seek
establish
essential
prerequisite
abstention
uncertain
issue
state
law
resolution
may
eliminate
materially
alter
federal
constitutional
question
harman
forssenius
persuaded
state
interpretation
avoid
substantially
modify
constitutional
question
presented
statute
contain
provision
purporting
regulate
censorship
personal
correspondence
preserves
right
inmates
receive
newspapers
periodicals
books
authorizes
prison
officials
exclude
obscene
publications
writings
mail
containing
information
concerning
matter
may
obtained
emphasis
added
plain
meaning
language
reinforced
recent
legislative
history
bill
introduced
california
legislature
restrict
censorship
personal
correspondence
adding
entirely
new
subsection
legislature
passed
bill
vetoed
governor
reagan
light
history
think
plain
reasonable
interpretation
avoid
modify
federal
constitutional
question
decided
moreover
mindful
high
cost
abstention
federal
constitutional
challenge
concerns
facial
repugnance
first
amendment
zwickler
koota
baggett
bullitt
therefore
proceed
merits
traditionally
federal
courts
adopted
broad
attitude
toward
problems
prison
administration
part
policy
product
various
limitations
scope
federal
review
conditions
state
penal
institutions
fundamentally
attitude
springs
complementary
perceptions
nature
problems
efficacy
judicial
intervention
prison
administrators
responsible
maintaining
internal
order
discipline
securing
institutions
unauthorized
access
escape
rehabilitating
extent
human
nature
inadequate
resources
allow
inmates
placed
custody
herculean
obstacles
effective
discharge
duties
apparent
warrant
explication
suffice
say
problems
prisons
america
complex
intractable
point
readily
susceptible
resolution
decree
require
expertise
comprehensive
planning
commitment
resources
peculiarly
within
province
legislative
executive
branches
government
reasons
courts
ill
equipped
deal
increasingly
urgent
problems
prison
administration
reform
judicial
recognition
fact
reflects
healthy
sense
realism
moreover
state
penal
institutions
involved
federal
courts
reason
deference
appropriate
prison
authorities
policy
judicial
restraint
encompass
failure
take
cognizance
valid
constitutional
claims
whether
arising
federal
state
institution
prison
regulation
practice
offends
fundamental
constitutional
guarantee
federal
courts
discharge
duty
protect
constitutional
rights
johnson
avery
case
although
district
found
regulations
relating
prisoner
mail
deficient
several
respects
first
principal
basis
decision
constitutional
command
first
amendment
applied
fourteenth
amendment
issue
us
appropriate
standard
review
prison
regulations
restricting
freedom
speech
previously
addressed
question
tension
traditional
policy
judicial
restraint
regarding
prisoner
complaints
need
protect
constitutional
rights
led
federal
courts
adopt
variety
widely
inconsistent
approaches
problem
maintained
posture
face
constitutional
challenges
censorship
prisoner
mail
mccloskey
maryland
lee
tahash
except
insofar
mail
censorship
rules
applied
discriminate
particular
racial
religious
group
krupnick
crouse
pope
daggett
another
required
censorship
personal
correspondence
lack
support
rational
constitutionally
acceptable
concept
prison
system
sostre
mcginnis
cert
denied
sub
nom
oswald
sostre
extreme
courts
willing
require
demonstration
compelling
state
interest
justify
censorship
prisoner
mail
jackson
godwin
decided
equal
protection
first
amendment
grounds
morales
schmidt
supp
wd
fortune
society
mcginnis
supp
sdny
courts
phrase
standard
similarly
demanding
terms
clear
present
danger
wilkinson
skinner
various
intermediate
positions
notably
view
regulation
practice
restricts
right
free
expression
prisoner
enjoyed
imprisoned
must
related
reasonably
necessarily
advancement
justifiable
purpose
carothers
follette
supp
sdny
citations
omitted
see
also
gates
collier
supp
nd
miss
lemon
zelker
supp
sdny
array
disparate
approaches
absence
generally
accepted
standard
testing
constitutionality
prisoner
mail
censorship
regulations
disserve
competing
interests
stake
one
hand
first
amendment
interests
implicated
censorship
inmate
correspondence
given
haphazard
inconsistent
protection
uncertainty
constitutional
standard
makes
impossible
correctional
officials
anticipate
required
invites
repetitive
piecemeal
litigation
behalf
inmates
result
unnecessarily
perpetuate
involvement
federal
courts
affairs
prison
administration
task
formulate
standard
review
prisoner
mail
censorship
responsive
concerns
begin
analysis
proper
standard
review
constitutional
challenges
censorship
prisoner
mail
somewhat
different
premise
taken
federal
courts
considered
question
part
courts
dealt
challenges
censorship
prisoner
mail
involving
broad
questions
prisoners
rights
case
exception
district
stated
issue
general
terms
applicability
first
amendment
rights
prison
inmates
arguments
parties
reflect
assumption
resolution
case
requires
assessment
extent
prisoners
may
claim
first
amendment
freedoms
view
inquiry
unnecessary
determining
proper
standard
review
prison
restrictions
inmate
correspondence
occasion
consider
extent
individual
right
free
speech
survives
incarceration
narrower
basis
decision
hand
case
direct
personal
correspondence
inmates
particularized
interest
communicating
mail
censorship
implicates
right
prisoners
communication
letter
accomplished
act
writing
words
paper
rather
effected
letter
read
addressee
parties
correspondence
interest
securing
result
censorship
communication
necessarily
impinges
interest
whatever
status
prisoner
claim
uncensored
correspondence
outsider
plain
latter
interest
grounded
first
amendment
guarantee
freedom
speech
depend
whether
nonprisoner
correspondent
author
intended
recipient
particular
letter
addressee
well
sender
direct
personal
correspondence
derives
first
fourteenth
amendments
protection
unjustified
governmental
interference
intended
communication
lamont
postmaster
general
accord
kleindienst
mandel
martin
city
struthers
deal
difficult
questions
right
hear
standing
particular
means
communication
interests
parties
inextricably
meshed
wife
prison
inmate
permitted
read
husband
wanted
say
suffered
abridgment
interest
communicating
plain
results
censorship
letter
either
event
censorship
prisoner
mail
works
consequential
restriction
first
fourteenth
amendments
rights
prisoners
accordingly
reject
attempt
justify
censorship
inmate
correspondence
merely
reference
certain
assumptions
legal
status
prisoners
category
argument
falls
appellants
contention
inmate
rights
reference
social
correspondence
something
fundamentally
different
enjoyed
free
brother
brief
appellants
line
argument
undemanding
standard
review
intended
support
fail
recognize
first
amendment
liberties
free
citizens
implicated
censorship
prisoner
mail
therefore
turn
guidance
cases
involving
questions
prisoners
rights
decisions
dealing
general
problem
incidental
restrictions
first
amendment
liberties
imposed
furtherance
legitimate
governmental
activities
noted
tinker
des
moines
school
district
first
amendment
guarantees
must
applied
light
special
characteristics
environment
tinker
concerned
interplay
right
freedom
speech
public
high
school
students
need
affirming
comprehensive
authority
school
officials
consistent
fundamental
constitutional
safeguards
prescribe
control
conduct
schools
overruling
school
regulation
prohibiting
wearing
antiwar
armbands
undertook
careful
analysis
legitimate
requirements
orderly
school
administration
order
ensure
students
afforded
maximum
freedom
speech
consistent
requirements
approach
followed
healy
james
considered
refusal
state
college
grant
official
recognition
group
students
wished
organize
local
chapter
students
democratic
society
sds
national
student
organization
noted
political
activism
campus
disruption
found
neither
identification
local
student
group
national
sds
purportedly
dangerous
political
philosophy
local
group
college
administration
fear
future
unspecified
disruptive
activities
students
justify
incursion
right
free
association
also
found
however
right
limited
necessary
prevent
campus
disruption
remanded
case
determination
whether
students
fact
refused
accept
reasonable
regulations
governing
student
conduct
dealt
incidental
restrictions
free
speech
occasioned
exercise
governmental
power
conscript
men
military
service
burned
selective
service
registration
certificate
steps
courthouse
order
dramatize
opposition
draft
country
involvement
vietnam
convicted
violating
provision
selective
service
law
recently
amended
prohibit
knowing
destruction
mutilation
registration
certificates
argued
purpose
effect
amendment
abridge
free
expression
statutory
provision
therefore
unconstitutional
enacted
applied
although
activity
involved
conduct
rather
pure
speech
define
away
first
amendment
concern
neither
rule
presence
communicative
intent
necessarily
rendered
actions
immune
governmental
regulation
instead
enunciated
following
test
government
regulation
sufficiently
justified
within
constitutional
power
government
furthers
important
substantial
governmental
interest
governmental
interest
unrelated
suppression
free
expression
incidental
restriction
alleged
first
amendment
freedoms
greater
essential
furtherance
interest
case
hand
arises
context
prisons
one
primary
functions
government
preservation
societal
order
enforcement
criminal
law
maintenance
penal
institutions
essential
part
task
identifiable
governmental
interests
stake
task
preservation
internal
order
discipline
maintenance
institutional
security
escape
unauthorized
entry
rehabilitation
prisoners
weight
professional
opinion
seems
inmate
freedom
correspond
outsiders
advances
rather
retards
goal
rehabilitation
legitimate
governmental
interest
order
security
penal
institutions
justifies
imposition
certain
restraints
inmate
correspondence
perhaps
obvious
example
justifiable
censorship
prisoner
mail
refusal
send
deliver
letters
concerning
escape
plans
containing
information
concerning
proposed
criminal
activity
whether
within
without
prison
similarly
prison
officials
may
properly
refuse
transmit
encoded
messages
less
obvious
possibilities
come
mind
purpose
survey
range
circumstances
particular
restrictions
prisoner
mail
might
warranted
legitimate
demands
prison
administration
exist
time
time
various
kinds
penal
institutions
found
country
task
determine
proper
standard
deciding
whether
particular
regulation
practice
relating
inmate
correspondence
constitutes
impermissible
restraint
first
amendment
liberties
applying
teachings
prior
decisions
instant
context
hold
censorship
prisoner
mail
justified
following
criteria
met
first
regulation
practice
question
must
important
substantial
governmental
interest
unrelated
suppression
expression
prison
officials
may
censor
inmate
correspondence
simply
eliminate
unflattering
unwelcome
opinions
factually
inaccurate
statements
rather
must
show
regulation
authorizing
mail
censorship
furthers
one
substantial
governmental
interests
security
order
rehabilitation
second
limitation
first
amendment
freedoms
must
greater
necessary
essential
protection
particular
governmental
interest
involved
thus
restriction
inmate
correspondence
furthers
important
substantial
interest
penal
administration
nevertheless
invalid
sweep
unnecessarily
broad
mean
course
prison
administrators
may
required
show
certainty
adverse
consequences
flow
failure
censor
particular
letter
latitude
anticipating
probable
consequences
allowing
certain
speech
prison
environment
essential
proper
discharge
administrator
duty
regulation
practice
restricts
inmate
correspondence
must
generally
necessary
protect
one
legitimate
governmental
interests
identified
basis
standard
affirm
judgment
district
regulations
invalidated
authorized
inter
alia
censorship
statements
unduly
complain
magnify
grievances
expression
inflammatory
political
racial
religious
views
matter
deemed
defamatory
otherwise
inappropriate
regulations
fairly
invited
prison
officials
employees
apply
personal
prejudices
opinions
standards
prisoner
mail
censorship
surprisingly
prison
officials
used
extraordinary
latitude
discretion
authorized
regulations
suppress
unwelcome
criticism
example
one
institution
department
jurisdiction
checklist
used
mailroom
staff
authorized
rejection
letters
criticizing
policy
rules
officials
mailroom
sergeant
stated
deposition
reject
defamatory
letters
belittling
staff
judicial
system
anything
connected
department
corrections
correspondence
also
censored
disrespectful
comments
derogatory
remarks
like
appellants
failed
show
broad
restrictions
prisoner
mail
way
necessary
furtherance
governmental
interest
unrelated
suppression
expression
indeed
heart
appellants
position
regulations
justified
legitimate
governmental
interest
need
misconception
stated
affirmatively
also
underlies
appellants
discussion
particular
regulations
attack
example
appellants
sole
defense
prohibition
matter
defamatory
otherwise
inappropriate
within
discretion
prison
administrators
brief
appellants
appellants
contend
statements
magnify
grievances
unduly
complain
censored
precaution
flash
riots
furtherance
inmate
rehabilitation
suggest
magnification
grievances
undue
complaining
presumably
occurs
outgoing
letters
possibly
lead
flash
riots
specify
contribution
suppression
complaints
makes
rehabilitation
criminals
appellants
defend
ban
inflammatory
political
racial
religious
views
ground
uch
matter
clearly
presents
danger
prison
security
regulation
however
narrowly
drawn
reach
material
might
thought
encourage
violence
application
limited
incoming
letters
short
department
regulations
authorized
censorship
prisoner
mail
far
broader
legitimate
interest
penal
administration
demands
properly
found
invalid
district
also
agree
district
decision
censor
withhold
delivery
particular
letter
must
accompanied
minimum
procedural
safeguards
interest
prisoners
correspondents
uncensored
communication
letter
grounded
first
amendment
plainly
liberty
interest
within
meaning
fourteenth
amendment
even
though
qualified
necessity
circumstance
imprisonment
protected
arbitrary
governmental
invasion
see
board
regents
roth
perry
sindermann
district
required
inmate
notified
rejection
letter
written
addressed
author
letter
given
reasonable
opportunity
protest
decision
complaints
referred
prison
official
person
originally
disapproved
correspondence
requirements
appear
unduly
burdensome
appellants
contend
accordingly
affirm
judgment
district
respect
department
regulations
relating
prisoner
mail
ii
district
also
enjoined
continued
enforcement
administrative
rule
provides
pertinent
part
investigators
confined
two
investigators
must
licensed
state
must
members
state
bar
designation
must
made
writing
attorney
constitutional
guarantee
due
process
law
corollary
requirement
prisoners
afforded
access
courts
order
challenge
unlawful
convictions
seek
redress
violations
constitutional
rights
means
inmates
must
reasonable
opportunity
seek
receive
assistance
attorneys
regulations
practices
unjustifiably
obstruct
availability
professional
representation
aspects
right
access
courts
invalid
ex
parte
hull
district
found
rule
restricting
interviews
members
bar
licensed
private
investigators
inhibited
adequate
professional
representation
indigent
inmates
remoteness
many
california
penal
institutions
makes
personal
visit
inmate
client
undertaking
reasoned
ban
use
law
students
paraprofessionals
interviews
deter
lawyers
representing
prisoners
afford
pay
traveling
time
licensed
private
investigators
lawyers
agreed
waste
time
might
employed
efficaciously
working
inmates
legal
problems
allowing
law
students
paraprofessionals
interview
inmates
might
well
reduce
cost
legal
representation
prisoners
district
therefore
concluded
regulation
imposed
substantial
burden
right
access
courts
district
recognized
conclusion
end
inquiry
prison
administrators
required
adopt
every
proposal
may
thought
facilitate
prisoner
access
courts
extent
right
burdened
particular
regulation
practice
must
weighed
legitimate
interests
penal
administration
proper
regard
judges
give
expertise
discretionary
authority
correctional
officials
case
ban
use
law
students
paraprofessional
personnel
absolute
prohibition
limited
prospective
interviewers
posed
colorable
threat
security
inmates
thought
especially
dangerous
shown
less
restrictive
regulation
unduly
burden
administrative
task
screening
monitoring
visitors
appellants
enforcement
regulation
question
also
created
arbitrary
distinction
law
students
employed
practicing
attorneys
associated
law
school
programs
providing
legal
assistance
prisoners
department
flatly
prohibited
interviews
sort
law
students
working
attorneys
freely
allowed
participants
number
law
school
programs
enter
prisons
meet
inmates
largely
unsupervised
students
admitted
without
security
check
verification
enrollment
school
program
course
fact
appellants
allowed
persons
conduct
interviews
prisoners
mean
required
admit
others
arbitrariness
distinction
two
categories
law
students
reveal
absence
real
justification
sweeping
prohibition
administrative
rule
say
district
erred
invalidating
regulation
result
mandated
decision
johnson
avery
struck
prison
regulation
prohibiting
inmate
advising
assisting
another
preparation
legal
documents
given
inadequacy
alternative
sources
legal
assistance
rule
effect
denying
illiterate
poorly
educated
inmates
opportunity
vindicate
possibly
valid
constitutional
claims
found
regulation
impermissibly
burdened
right
access
courts
despite
insignificant
state
interest
preventing
establishment
personal
power
structures
unscrupulous
jailhouse
lawyers
attendant
problems
prison
discipline
follow
countervailing
state
interest
johnson
anything
persuasive
interest
advanced
appellants
instant
case
judgment
affirmed
footnotes
director
rule
provided
inmate
behavior
always
conduct
orderly
manner
fight
take
part
horseplay
physical
encounters
except
part
regular
athletic
program
agitate
unduly
complain
magnify
grievances
behave
way
might
lead
violence
undisputed
phrases
unduly
complain
magnify
grievances
applied
personal
correspondence
director
rule
provided
following
contraband
writings
voice
recordings
expressing
inflammatory
political
racial
religious
views
beliefs
immediate
possession
originator
originator
possession
used
subvert
prison
discipline
display
circulation
rule
also
provides
writings
defined
contraband
rule
circulated
among
inmates
judgment
warden
superintendent
tend
subvert
prison
order
discipline
may
placed
inmate
property
shall
access
supervision
time
appellees
amended
complaint
rule
included
prohibitions
prison
gossip
discussion
inmates
first
opinion
district
provisions
deleted
phrase
contain
foreign
matter
substituted
stead
baggett
considered
constitutionality
loyalty
oaths
required
certain
state
employees
condition
employment
purpose
applying
doctrine
abstention
distinguished
two
kinds
vagueness
attacks
case
turns
applicability
state
statute
regulation
particular
person
defined
course
conduct
resolution
unsettled
question
state
law
may
eliminate
need
constitutional
adjudication
abstention
therefore
appropriate
however
case
statute
regulation
challenged
vague
individuals
plainly
applies
simply
understand
required
wish
forswear
activity
arguably
within
scope
vague
terms
abstention
required
case
single
adjudication
state
eliminate
constitutional
difficulty
rather
require
extensive
adjudications
impact
variety
factual
situations
bring
challenged
statute
regulation
within
bounds
permissible
constitutional
certainty
ibid
cal
penal
code
provides
sentence
imprisonment
state
prison
term
suspends
civil
rights
person
sentenced
allows
partial
restoration
rights
california
adult
authority
statute
declares
pertinent
part
section
shall
construed
deprive
person
following
civil
rights
accordance
laws
state
purchase
receive
read
newspapers
periodicals
books
accepted
distribution
post
office
pursuant
provisions
section
prison
authorities
shall
authority
exclude
obscene
publications
writings
mail
containing
information
concerning
matter
may
obtained
matter
character
tending
incite
murder
arson
riot
violent
racism
form
violence
matter
concerning
gambling
lottery
appellants
argue
correctness
abstention
argument
demonstrated
district
disposition
count
ii
appellees
amended
complaint
count
ii
appellees
challenged
mail
regulations
ground
application
correspondence
inmates
attorneys
contravened
sixth
fourteenth
amendments
appellees
later
discovered
case
pending
california
application
prison
rules
mail
attacked
subsection
provides
section
shall
construed
deprive
inmate
following
civil
rights
accordance
laws
state
correspond
confidentially
member
state
bar
holder
public
office
provided
prison
authorities
may
open
inspect
mail
search
contraband
district
stay
hand
subsequent
decision
jordan
cal
holding
barred
censorship
correspondence
rendered
count
ii
moot
disposition
claim
relating
mail
however
quite
irrelevant
appellants
contention
district
abstained
deciding
whether
mail
regulations
constitutional
apply
personal
mail
subsection
speaks
directly
issue
censorship
mail
says
nothing
personal
correspondence
appellants
informed
us
challenge
censorship
personal
mail
presently
pending
state
courts
see
note
decency
fairness
emerging
judicial
role
prison
reform
rev
also
ill
suited
act
agencies
consideration
resolution
infinite
variety
prisoner
complaints
moreover
capacity
criminal
justice
system
deal
fairly
fully
legitimate
claims
impaired
burgeoning
increase
frivolous
prisoner
complaints
one
means
alleviating
problem
chief
justice
suggested
federal
state
authorities
explore
possibility
instituting
internal
administrative
procedures
disposition
inmate
grievances
third
circuit
judicial
conference
meeting
october
problem
addressed
suggestions
also
included
abstention
appropriate
avoid
needless
consideration
federal
constitutional
issues
ii
use
federal
magistrates
sent
penal
institutions
conduct
hearings
make
findings
fact
emphasize
express
view
merit
validity
particular
proposal
think
appropriate
indicate
necessity
prompt
thoughtful
consideration
responsible
federal
state
authorities
worsening
situation
specifically
district
held
regulations
authorized
restraint
lawful
expression
violation
first
fourteenth
amendments
fatally
vague
failed
provide
minimum
procedural
safeguards
arbitrary
erroneous
censorship
protected
speech
different
considerations
may
come
play
case
mass
mailings
issue
raised
facts
intimate
view
proper
resolution
need
address
case
validity
temporary
prohibition
inmate
personal
correspondence
disciplinary
sanction
usually
part
regimen
solitary
confinement
violation
prison
rules
policy
statement
federal
bureau
prisons
sets
forth
bureau
position
regarding
general
correspondence
prisoners
entrusted
custody
authorizes
federal
institutions
adopt
open
correspondence
regulations
recognizes
need
restrictions
arises
primarily
considerations
order
security
rather
rehabilitation
constructive
wholesome
contact
community
valuable
therapeutic
tool
overall
correctional
process
time
basic
controls
need
exercised
order
protect
security
institution
individuals
recommended
policy
guideline
adopted
association
state
correctional
administrators
august
echoes
view
personal
correspondence
prison
inmates
generally
wholesome
activity
correspondence
members
inmate
family
close
friends
associates
organizations
beneficial
morale
confined
persons
may
form
basis
good
adjustment
institution
community
necessarily
controlling
policies
followed
institutions
relevant
determination
need
particular
type
restriction
example
policy
statement
federal
bureau
prisons
specifies
personal
correspondence
inmates
federal
prisons
whether
incoming
outgoing
may
rejected
inclusion
following
kinds
material
material
might
violate
postal
regulations
threats
blackmail
contraband
indicate
plots
escape
discussions
criminal
activities
inmate
may
permitted
direct
business
confinement
go
point
prohibiting
correspondence
necessary
enable
inmate
protect
property
funds
legitimately
time
committed
institution
thus
inmate
correspond
refinancing
mortgage
home
sign
insurance
papers
operate
mortgage
insurance
business
institution
letters
containing
codes
obvious
attempts
circumvent
regulations
subject
rejection
insofar
possible
letters
written
english
every
effort
made
accommodate
inmates
unable
write
english
whose
correspondents
unable
understand
letter
written
english
criminal
sophistication
inmate
relationship
inmate
correspondent
factors
considered
deciding
whether
correspondence
foreign
language
permitted
district
held
original
regulations
unconstitutional
revised
regulations
developed
appellants
approved
supp
app
although
regulations
us
review
indicative
one
solution
problem
following
provisions
govern
censorship
prisoner
correspondence
correspondence
criteria
disapproval
inmate
mail
outgoing
letters
outgoing
letters
inmates
institutions
requiring
approval
inmate
correspondents
may
disapproved
mailing
content
falls
whole
significant
part
following
categories
letter
contains
threats
physical
harm
person
threats
criminal
activity
letter
threatens
blackmail
extortion
letter
concerns
sending
contraband
institutions
letter
concerns
plans
escape
letter
concerns
plans
activities
violation
institutional
rules
letter
concerns
plans
criminal
activity
letter
code
contents
understood
reader
letter
solicits
gifts
goods
money
family
letter
obscene
letter
contains
information
communicated
create
clear
present
danger
violence
physical
harm
human
outgoing
letters
inmates
institutions
requiring
approval
correspondents
may
disapproved
foregoing
reasons
addressee
approved
correspondent
inmate
special
permission
letter
obtained
incoming
letters
incoming
letters
inmates
may
disapproved
receipt
foregoing
reasons
letter
contains
material
cause
severe
psychiatric
emotional
disturbance
inmate
institution
requiring
approval
inmate
correspondents
person
approved
correspondent
special
permission
letter
obtained
limitations
disapproval
letter
basis
cause
severe
psychiatric
emotional
disturbance
inmate
may
done
member
institution
psychiatric
staff
consultation
inmate
caseworker
staff
member
may
disapprove
letter
upon
finding
receipt
letter
likely
affect
prison
discipline
security
inmate
rehabilitation
reasonable
alternative
means
ameliorating
disturbance
inmate
outgoing
incoming
letters
may
rejected
solely
upon
ground
contain
criticism
institution
personnel
notice
disapproval
inmate
mail
inmate
prohibited
sending
letter
letter
written
signed
notice
stating
one
authorized
reasons
disapproval
indicating
portion
portions
letter
causing
disapproval
given
inmate
inmate
prohibited
receiving
letter
letter
written
signed
notice
stating
one
authorized
reasons
disapproval
indicating
portion
portions
letter
causing
disapproval
given
sender
inmate
given
notice
writing
letter
rejected
indicating
one
authorized
reasons
sender
name
material
correspondence
violates
provisions
paragraph
one
may
placed
inmate
file
material
correspondence
may
placed
inmate
file
unless
lawfully
observed
employee
department
relevant
assessment
inmate
rehabilitation
however
material
violation
provisions
paragraph
one
may
subject
disciplinary
proceedings
inmate
inmate
shall
notified
writing
placing
material
correspondence
file
administrative
review
inmate
grievances
regarding
application
rule
may
accordance
paragraph
rules
apparently
department
policy
regarding
law
school
programs
providing
legal
assistance
inmates
though
well
established
embodied
regulation
justice
marshall
justice
brennan
joins
concurring
concur
opinion
judgment
write
separately
emphasize
view
prison
authorities
general
right
open
read
incoming
outgoing
prisoner
mail
although
issue
first
amendment
rights
inmates
explicitly
reserved
reach
issue
hold
prison
authorities
may
read
inmate
mail
matter
course
ii
justice
holmes
observed
half
century
ago
use
mails
almost
much
part
free
speech
right
use
tongues
milwaukee
social
democratic
publishing
burleson
dissenting
opinion
quoted
approval
blount
rizzi
see
also
lamont
postmaster
general
prisoner
shed
basic
first
amendment
rights
prison
gate
rather
retains
rights
ordinary
citizen
except
expressly
necessary
implication
taken
law
coffin
reichard
accordingly
prisoners
view
entitled
use
mails
medium
free
expression
privilege
rather
constitutionally
guaranteed
right
seems
clear
freedom
may
seriously
infringed
permitting
correctional
authorities
read
prisoner
correspondence
prisoner
free
open
expression
surely
restrained
knowledge
every
word
may
read
jailors
message
well
find
way
disciplinary
file
object
ridicule
even
lead
reprisals
similar
pall
may
cast
free
expression
inmates
correspondents
cf
talley
california
naacp
alabama
intrusion
first
amendment
freedoms
justified
substantial
government
interest
showing
means
chosen
effectuate
state
purpose
unnecessarily
restrictive
personal
freedoms
ven
though
governmental
purpose
legitimate
substantial
purpose
pursued
means
broadly
stifle
fundamental
personal
liberties
end
narrowly
achieved
shelton
tucker
state
asserts
number
justifications
general
right
read
prisoner
correspondence
state
argues
contraband
weapons
narcotics
may
smuggled
prison
via
mail
certainly
legitimate
concern
prison
authorities
argument
provides
justification
reading
outgoing
mail
even
incoming
mail
showing
stemming
traffic
contraband
accomplished
equally
well
means
physical
tests
fluoroscoping
letters
physical
tests
inadequate
merely
opening
inspecting
reading
incoming
mail
clearly
suffice
also
suggested
prison
authorities
must
read
prison
mail
order
detect
escape
plans
state
surely
justify
reading
everyone
mail
listening
phone
conversations
chance
criminal
schemes
concocted
similarly
reading
prisoner
mail
great
intrusion
first
amendment
rights
justified
speculative
concern
showing
seriousness
problem
escapes
planned
arranged
via
mail
indeed
state
claim
concern
problem
undermined
general
practice
permitting
unmonitored
personal
interviews
number
surreptitious
plans
might
discussed
undetected
prison
authorities
reason
believe
escape
plot
hatched
particular
inmate
correspondence
may
well
adequate
basis
seize
inmate
letters
justification
blanket
policy
reading
prison
mail
also
occasionally
asserted
reading
prisoner
mail
useful
tool
rehabilitative
process
therapeutic
model
corrections
come
increasing
criticism
penal
institutions
rehabilitative
programs
ideal
reality
assuming
validity
rehabilitative
model
however
state
demonstrate
reading
inmate
mail
attendant
chilling
effect
free
expression
serves
valid
rehabilitative
purpose
prison
walls
serve
merely
restrain
offenders
also
isolate
mails
provide
one
ties
inmates
retain
communities
families
ties
essential
success
later
return
outside
world
judge
kaufman
writing
second
circuit
found
two
observations
particularly
apropos
similar
claims
rehabilitative
benefit
sostre
mcginnis
en
banc
letter
writing
keeps
inmate
contact
outside
world
helps
hold
check
morbidity
hopelessness
produced
prison
life
isolation
stimulates
natural
human
impulses
otherwise
may
make
contributions
better
mental
attitudes
reformation
harm
censorship
rehabilitation
gainsaid
inmates
lose
contact
outside
world
become
wary
placing
intimate
thoughts
criticisms
prison
letters
artificial
increase
alienation
society
ill
advised
balanced
state
asserted
interests
values
generally
associated
freedom
speech
free
society
values
turn
dross
unfree
one
sostre
mcginnis
supra
first
amendment
guarantees
protect
free
uninterrupted
interchange
ideas
upon
democratic
society
thrives
perhaps
obvious
victim
indirect
censorship
effected
policy
allowing
prison
authorities
read
inmate
mail
criticism
prison
administration
threat
identification
reprisal
inherent
allowing
correctional
authorities
read
prisoner
mail
lost
inmates
might
otherwise
criticize
jailors
mails
one
vehicles
prisoners
informing
community
existence
days
strife
correctional
institutions
plight
prisoners
matter
urgent
public
concern
sustain
policy
chills
communication
necessary
inform
public
issue
odds
basic
tenets
guarantee
freedom
speech
first
amendment
serves
needs
polity
also
human
spirit
spirit
demands
expression
integral
part
development
ideas
sense
identity
suppress
expression
reject
basic
human
desire
recognition
affront
individual
worth
dignity
cf
stanley
georgia
restraint
may
greatest
displeasure
indignity
free
knowing
spirit
put
upon
milton
aeropagitica
everyman
ed
prison
gates
slam
behind
inmate
lose
human
quality
mind
become
closed
ideas
intellect
cease
feed
free
open
interchange
opinions
yearning
end
quest
concluded
anything
needs
identity
compelling
dehumanizing
prison
environment
whether
henry
writing
short
stories
jail
cell
frightened
young
inmate
writing
family
prisoner
needs
medium
role
first
amendment
protect
precious
personal
rights
satisfy
basic
yearnings
human
spirit
justice
douglas
joins
part
ii
opinion
see
cruz
beto
cooper
pate
brown
peyton
rowland
sigler
supp
neb
aff
fortune
society
mcginnis
supp
sdny
accord
moore
ciccone
nolan
fitzpatrick
brenneman
madigan
supp
nd
cal
burnham
oswald
supp
wdny
carothers
follette
supp
sdny
see
sostre
mcginnis
en
banc
preston
thieszen
supp
wd
cf
gray
creamer
morales
schmidt
supp
wd
palmigiano
travisono
supp
ri
carothers
follette
supra
test
apply
thus
essentially
test
applied
regulation
question
must
important
substantial
governmental
interest
unrelated
suppression
expression
limitation
first
amendment
freedoms
must
greater
necessary
essential
protection
particular
governmental
interest
involved
ante
see
marsh
moore
supp
mass
see
moore
ciccone
supra
lay
concurring
cf
jones
wittenberg
supp
nd
ohio
aff
sub
nom
jones
metzger
palmigiano
travisono
supra
see
generally
mitford
kind
usual
punishment
prison
business
see
national
advisory
commission
criminal
justice
standards
goals
corrections
see
palmigiano
travisono
supra
singer
censorship
prisoners
mail
constitution
various
studies
strongly
recommended
correctional
authorities
right
inspect
mail
contraband
read
national
advisory
commission
criminal
justice
standards
goals
corrections
standard
pp
see
california
board
corrections
california
correctional
system
study
institutions
center
criminal
justice
boston
university
law
school
model
rules
regulations
prisoners
rights
responsibilities
standards
pp
see
nolan
fitzpatrick
emerson
toward
general
theory
first
amendment
yale
justice
douglas
concurring
judgment
joined
part
ii
justice
marshall
opinion
think
makes
abundantly
clear
foremost
among
bill
rights
prisoners
country
whether
state
federal
detention
first
amendment
prisoners
still
persons
entitled
constitutional
rights
unless
liberty
constitutionally
curtailed
procedures
satisfy
requirements
due
process
chief
justice
hughes
stromberg
california
stated
first
amendment
applicable
reason
due
process
clause
fourteenth
become
customary
rest
broader
foundation
entire
fourteenth
amendment
free
speech
press
within
meaning
first
amendment
judgment
among
privileges
immunities
citizens