turner
safley
argued
january
decided
june
respondent
inmates
brought
class
action
challenging
two
regulations
promulgated
missouri
division
corrections
first
permits
correspondence
immediate
family
members
inmates
different
institutions
within
division
jurisdiction
inmates
concerning
legal
matters
allows
inmate
correspondence
inmate
team
deems
best
interests
parties
second
regulation
permits
inmate
marry
prison
superintendent
permission
given
compelling
reasons
testimony
indicated
generally
pregnancy
birth
illegitimate
child
considered
compelling
federal
district
found
regulations
unconstitutional
appeals
affirmed
held
lower
courts
erred
ruling
procunier
martinez
progeny
require
application
strict
scrutiny
standard
review
resolving
respondents
constitutional
complaints
rather
cases
indicate
lesser
standard
appropriate
whereby
inquiry
made
whether
prison
regulation
impinges
inmates
constitutional
rights
reasonably
related
legitimate
penological
interests
determining
reasonableness
relevant
factors
include
whether
valid
rational
connection
regulation
legitimate
neutral
governmental
interest
put
forward
justify
connection
remote
render
regulation
arbitrary
irrational
whether
alternative
means
exercising
asserted
constitutional
right
remain
open
inmates
alternatives
exist
require
measure
judicial
deference
corrections
officials
expertise
whether
extent
accommodation
asserted
right
impact
prison
staff
inmates
liberty
allocation
limited
prison
resources
impact
substantial
require
particular
deference
corrections
officials
whether
regulation
represents
exaggerated
response
prison
concerns
existence
ready
alternative
fully
accommodates
prisoner
rights
de
minimis
costs
valid
penological
interests
evidence
unreasonableness
pp
missouri
inmate
correspondence
regulation
record
reasonable
facially
valid
regulation
logically
related
legitimate
security
concerns
prison
officials
testified
mail
prisons
used
communicate
escape
plans
arrange
violent
acts
foster
prison
gang
activity
moreover
regulation
deprive
prisoners
means
expression
simply
bars
communication
limited
class
people
inmates
authorities
particular
cause
concerned
regulation
entitled
deference
basis
significant
impact
prison
correspondence
liberty
safety
prisoners
prison
personnel
light
officials
testimony
correspondence
facilitates
development
informal
organizations
threaten
safety
security
penal
institutions
obvious
easy
alternative
regulation
since
monitoring
inmate
correspondence
clearly
impose
de
minimis
cost
terms
burden
staff
resources
required
conduct
censorship
create
appreciable
risk
missing
dangerous
communications
regulation
content
neutral
unconstitutionally
abridge
first
amendment
rights
prison
inmates
pp
constitutional
right
prisoners
marry
impermissibly
burdened
missouri
marriage
regulation
pp
prisoners
constitutionally
protected
right
marry
zablocki
redhail
although
marriage
subject
substantial
restrictions
result
incarceration
sufficient
important
attributes
marriage
remain
form
constitutionally
protected
relationship
butler
wilson
distinguished
pp
regulation
facially
invalid
reasonable
relationship
test
although
prison
officials
may
regulate
time
circumstances
marriage
takes
place
may
require
prior
approval
warden
almost
complete
ban
marriages
record
reasonably
related
legitimate
penological
objectives
contention
regulation
serves
security
concerns
preventing
love
triangles
may
lead
violent
inmate
confrontations
without
merit
since
inmate
rivalries
likely
develop
without
formal
marriage
ceremony
moreover
regulation
broad
prohibition
justified
security
fellow
inmates
prison
staff
affected
inmate
makes
private
decision
marry
civilian
rather
regulation
represents
exaggerated
response
claimed
security
objectives
since
allowing
marriages
unless
warden
finds
threat
security
order
public
safety
represents
obvious
easy
alternative
accommodate
right
marry
imposing
de
minimis
burden
regulation
reasonably
related
articulated
rehabilitation
goal
fostering
female
prisoners
requiring
refusal
permission
marry
inmates
absent
compelling
reason
regulation
sweeps
much
broadly
necessary
light
officials
testimony
male
inmates
marriages
generally
caused
problems
objections
prisoners
marrying
civilians
pp
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
white
powell
scalia
joined
part
brennan
marshall
blackmun
stevens
joined
stevens
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
brennan
marshall
blackmun
joined
post
henry
herschel
assistant
attorney
general
missouri
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
william
webster
attorney
general
michael
boicourt
floyd
finch
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondents
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
solicitor
general
fried
assistant
attorney
general
trott
deputy
solicitor
general
cohen
roger
clegg
state
arkansas
et
al
thomas
miller
attorney
general
iowa
brent
appel
deputy
attorney
general
john
steven
clark
attorney
general
arkansas
john
van
de
kamp
attorney
general
california
lacy
thornburg
attorney
general
north
carolina
nicholas
spaeth
attorney
general
north
dakota
travis
medlock
attorney
general
south
carolina
mark
meierhenry
attorney
general
south
dakota
gerald
baliles
attorney
general
virginia
robert
spire
attorney
general
nebraska
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
correctional
association
new
york
john
hall
steven
klugman
prisoners
legal
services
new
york
et
al
robert
selcov
guadalupe
guajardo
et
al
harry
reasoner
ann
lents
jim
mattox
attorney
general
texas
mary
keller
executive
assistant
attorney
general
scott
mccown
michael
lynch
assistant
attorneys
general
filed
brief
state
texas
amicus
curiae
justice
delivered
opinion
case
requires
us
determine
constitutionality
regulations
promulgated
missouri
division
corrections
relating
inmate
marriages
correspondence
appeals
eighth
circuit
applying
strict
scrutiny
analysis
concluded
regulations
violate
respondents
constitutional
rights
hold
lesser
standard
scrutiny
appropriate
determining
constitutionality
prison
rules
applying
standard
uphold
validity
correspondence
regulation
conclude
marriage
restriction
sustained
respondents
brought
class
action
injunctive
relief
damages
district
western
district
missouri
regulations
challenged
complaint
effect
prisons
within
jurisdiction
missouri
division
corrections
litigation
focused
however
practices
renz
correctional
institution
renz
located
cedar
city
missouri
renz
prison
population
includes
male
female
prisoners
varying
security
levels
female
prisoners
renz
classified
medium
maximum
security
inmates
male
prisoners
classified
minimum
security
offenders
renz
used
occasion
provide
protective
custody
inmates
prisons
missouri
system
facility
originally
built
minimum
security
prison
farm
still
minimum
security
perimeter
without
guard
towers
walls
two
regulations
issue
first
challenged
regulations
relates
correspondence
inmates
different
institutions
permits
correspondence
immediate
family
members
inmates
correctional
institutions
permits
correspondence
inmates
concerning
legal
matters
correspondence
inmates
however
permitted
team
inmate
deems
best
interest
parties
involved
app
trial
testimony
indicated
matter
practice
determination
whether
permit
inmates
correspond
based
team
members
familiarity
progress
reports
conduct
violations
psychological
reports
inmates
files
rather
individual
review
piece
mail
see
renz
district
found
rule
practiced
inmates
may
write
inmates
supp
wd
mo
challenged
marriage
regulation
promulgated
litigation
pending
permits
inmate
marry
permission
superintendent
prison
provides
approval
given
compelling
reasons
app
term
compelling
defined
prison
officials
testified
trial
generally
pregnancy
birth
illegitimate
child
considered
compelling
reason
see
prior
promulgation
rule
applicable
regulation
obligate
missouri
division
corrections
officials
assist
inmate
wanted
get
married
also
specifically
authorize
superintendent
institution
prohibit
inmates
getting
married
ibid
district
certified
respondents
class
pursuant
federal
rule
civil
procedure
class
certified
district
includes
persons
either
may
confined
renz
correctional
center
desire
correspond
inmates
missouri
correctional
facilities
also
encompasses
broader
group
persons
desire
marry
inmates
missouri
correctional
institutions
whose
rights
marriage
violated
employees
missouri
division
corrections
see
app
district
issued
memorandum
opinion
order
finding
correspondence
marriage
regulations
unconstitutional
relying
procunier
martinez
applied
strict
scrutiny
standard
held
marriage
regulation
unconstitutional
infringement
upon
fundamental
right
marry
far
restrictive
either
reasonable
essential
protection
state
interests
security
rehabilitation
correspondence
regulation
also
unnecessarily
broad
concluded
prison
officials
effectively
cope
security
problems
raised
correspondence
less
restrictive
means
scanning
mail
potentially
troublesome
inmate
district
also
held
correspondence
regulation
applied
arbitrary
capricious
manner
appeals
eighth
circuit
affirmed
appeals
held
district
properly
used
strict
scrutiny
evaluating
constitutionality
missouri
correspondence
marriage
regulations
procunier
martinez
supra
correspondence
regulation
justified
furthers
important
substantial
governmental
interest
unrelated
suppression
expression
limitation
greater
necessary
essential
protect
interest
correspondence
regulation
satisfy
standard
least
restrictive
means
achieving
security
goals
regulation
appeals
view
prison
officials
meet
problem
inmate
conspiracies
exercising
authority
open
read
prisoner
mail
appeals
also
concluded
marriage
rule
least
restrictive
means
achieving
asserted
goals
rehabilitation
security
goal
rehabilitation
met
alternatives
counseling
violent
love
triangles
likely
occur
without
formal
marriage
ceremony
one
ibid
absent
evidence
relationship
become
abusive
connection
inmate
marriage
subsequent
commission
crime
simply
tenuous
justify
denial
constitutional
right
granted
certiorari
ii
begin
courts
decision
procunier
martinez
supra
described
principles
necessarily
frame
analysis
prisoners
constitutional
claims
first
principles
federal
courts
must
take
cognizance
valid
constitutional
claims
prison
inmates
prison
walls
form
barrier
separating
prison
inmates
protections
constitution
hence
example
prisoners
retain
constitutional
right
petition
government
redress
grievances
johnson
avery
protected
invidious
racial
discrimination
equal
protection
clause
fourteenth
amendment
lee
washington
enjoy
protections
due
process
wolff
mcdonnell
haines
kerner
prisoners
retain
rights
hen
prison
regulation
practice
offends
fundamental
constitutional
guarantee
federal
courts
discharge
duty
protect
constitutional
rights
procunier
martinez
second
principle
identified
martinez
however
recognition
courts
ill
equipped
deal
increasingly
urgent
problems
prison
administration
reform
martinez
acknowledged
problems
prisons
america
complex
intractable
point
readily
susceptible
resolution
decree
running
prison
inordinately
difficult
undertaking
requires
expertise
planning
commitment
resources
peculiarly
within
province
legislative
executive
branches
government
prison
administration
moreover
task
committed
responsibility
branches
separation
powers
concerns
counsel
policy
judicial
restraint
state
penal
system
involved
federal
courts
indicated
martinez
additional
reason
accord
deference
appropriate
prison
authorities
see
task
stated
martinez
formulate
standard
review
prisoners
constitutional
claims
responsive
policy
judicial
restraint
regarding
prisoner
complaints
need
protect
constitutional
rights
appeals
acknowledged
martinez
resolve
question
framed
martinez
involved
mail
censorship
regulations
proscribing
statements
unduly
complain
magnify
grievances
express
inflammatory
political
racial
religious
views
case
determined
proper
standard
review
prison
restrictions
correspondence
prisoners
members
general
public
decided
without
resolving
broad
questions
prisoners
rights
martinez
based
ruling
striking
regulation
first
amendment
rights
prisoners
stating
hatever
status
prisoner
claim
uncensored
correspondence
outsider
plain
latter
interest
grounded
first
amendment
guarantee
freedom
speech
holding
therefore
turned
fact
challenged
regulation
caused
consequential
restriction
first
fourteenth
amendment
rights
prisoners
emphasis
added
expressly
reserved
question
proper
standard
review
apply
cases
involving
questions
prisoners
rights
ibid
four
cases
following
martinez
addressed
questions
prisoners
rights
first
pell
procunier
decided
term
martinez
involved
constitutional
challenge
prison
regulation
prohibiting
media
interviews
individual
inmates
rejected
inmates
first
amendment
challenge
ban
media
interviews
noting
judgments
regarding
prison
security
peculiarly
within
province
professional
expertise
corrections
officials
absence
substantial
evidence
record
indicate
officials
exaggerated
response
considerations
courts
ordinarily
defer
expert
judgment
matters
next
case
consider
claim
prisoners
rights
jones
north
carolina
prisoners
union
considered
prison
regulations
prohibited
meetings
prisoners
labor
union
inmate
solicitation
inmates
join
union
bulk
mailings
concerning
union
outside
sources
noting
lower
jones
got
ten
wrong
foot
giving
appropriate
deference
decisions
prison
administrators
appropriate
recognition
peculiar
restrictive
circumstances
penal
confinement
determined
first
fourteenth
amendment
rights
prisoners
barely
implicated
prohibition
bulk
mailings
see
regulation
reasonable
circumstances
prisoners
constitutional
challenge
union
meeting
solicitation
restrictions
also
rejected
ban
inmate
solicitation
group
meetings
rationally
related
reasonable
indeed
central
objectives
prison
administration
bell
wolfish
concerned
first
amendment
challenge
bureau
prisons
rule
restricting
inmates
receipt
hardback
books
unless
mailed
directly
publishers
book
clubs
bookstores
rule
upheld
rational
response
clear
security
problem
evidence
officials
exaggerated
response
security
problem
held
considered
judgment
experts
must
control
absence
prohibitions
far
sweeping
involved
block
rutherford
ban
contact
visits
upheld
ground
responsible
experienced
administrators
determined
sound
discretion
visits
jeopardize
security
facility
regulation
reasonably
related
security
concerns
none
four
prisoners
rights
cases
apply
standard
heightened
scrutiny
instead
inquired
whether
prison
regulation
burdens
fundamental
rights
reasonably
related
legitimate
penological
objectives
whether
represents
exaggerated
response
concerns
appeals
case
nevertheless
concluded
martinez
provided
closest
analogy
determining
appropriate
standard
review
resolving
respondents
constitutional
complaints
appeals
distinguished
decisions
pell
jones
bell
block
variously
involving
time
place
manner
regulations
regulations
restrict
presumptively
dangerous
inmate
activities
see
appeals
acknowledged
martinez
expressly
reserved
question
appropriate
standard
review
based
inmates
constitutional
claims
nonetheless
believed
martinez
standard
proper
one
apply
respondents
constitutional
claims
disagree
appeals
reasoning
cases
subsequent
martinez
narrowly
cabined
pell
example
found
relevant
reasonableness
restriction
visits
prisoners
news
reporters
prisoners
means
communicating
members
general
public
see
alternative
means
communication
however
make
prison
regulation
time
place
manner
restriction
ordinary
sense
term
pell
acknowledged
alternative
methods
personal
communication
still
available
prisoners
unimpressive
offered
justify
restriction
personal
communication
among
members
general
public
nevertheless
relevant
determining
scope
burden
placed
regulation
inmates
first
amendment
rights
pell
thus
simply
teaches
appropriate
consider
extent
burden
called
upon
balance
first
amendment
rights
legitimate
governmental
interests
view
reasonableness
standard
adopted
jones
bell
construed
applying
presumptively
dangerous
inmate
activities
begin
appeals
indicate
identify
presumptively
dangerous
conduct
conclude
group
meetings
jones
receipt
hardback
books
bell
fall
category
see
appeals
found
correspondence
inmates
come
within
grouping
think
letter
presents
sort
obvious
security
problem
hardback
book
readily
apparent
however
hardback
books
scanned
contraband
electronic
devices
fluoroscopes
see
bell
wolfish
supra
marshall
dissenting
qualitatively
different
respect
inmate
correspondence
written
codes
readily
subject
detection
coordinated
inmate
activity
within
prison
categorically
different
inmate
activity
coordinated
mail
among
different
prison
institutions
determination
activity
presumptively
dangerous
appears
simply
conclusion
reasonableness
prison
restriction
light
articulated
security
concerns
therefore
provides
tenuous
basis
creating
hierarchy
standards
review
pell
jones
bell
already
resolved
question
posed
martinez
resolve
prison
regulation
impinges
inmates
constitutional
rights
regulation
valid
reasonably
related
legitimate
penological
interests
view
standard
necessary
prison
administrators
courts
make
difficult
judgments
concerning
institutional
operations
jones
north
carolina
prisoners
union
subjecting
judgments
prison
officials
inflexible
strict
scrutiny
analysis
seriously
hamper
ability
anticipate
security
problems
adopt
innovative
solutions
intractable
problems
prison
administration
rule
also
distort
decisionmaking
process
every
administrative
judgment
subject
possibility
somewhere
conclude
less
restrictive
way
solving
problem
hand
courts
inevitably
become
primary
arbiters
constitutes
best
solution
every
administrative
problem
thereby
unnecessarily
perpetuat
ing
involvement
federal
courts
affairs
prison
administration
procunier
martinez
opinions
pell
bell
jones
show
several
factors
relevant
determining
reasonableness
regulation
issue
first
must
valid
rational
connection
prison
regulation
legitimate
governmental
interest
put
forward
justify
block
rutherford
supra
thus
regulation
sustained
logical
connection
regulation
asserted
goal
remote
render
policy
arbitrary
irrational
moreover
governmental
objective
must
legitimate
neutral
one
found
important
inquire
whether
prison
regulations
restricting
inmates
first
amendment
rights
operated
neutral
fashion
without
regard
content
expression
see
pell
procunier
bell
wolfish
second
factor
relevant
determining
reasonableness
prison
restriction
pell
shows
whether
alternative
means
exercising
right
remain
open
prison
inmates
avenues
remain
available
exercise
asserted
right
see
jones
north
carolina
prisoners
union
supra
courts
particularly
conscious
measure
judicial
deference
owed
corrections
officials
gauging
validity
regulation
pell
procunier
supra
third
consideration
impact
accommodation
asserted
constitutional
right
guards
inmates
allocation
prison
resources
generally
necessarily
closed
environment
correctional
institution
changes
ramifications
liberty
others
use
prison
limited
resources
preserving
institutional
order
accommodation
asserted
right
significant
ripple
effect
fellow
inmates
prison
staff
courts
particularly
deferential
informed
discretion
corrections
officials
cf
jones
north
carolina
prisoners
union
supra
finally
absence
ready
alternatives
evidence
reasonableness
prison
regulation
see
block
rutherford
token
existence
obvious
easy
alternatives
may
evidence
regulation
reasonable
exaggerated
response
prison
concerns
least
restrictive
alternative
test
prison
officials
set
shoot
every
conceivable
alternative
method
accommodating
claimant
constitutional
complaint
see
ibid
inmate
claimant
point
alternative
fully
accommodates
prisoner
rights
de
minimis
cost
valid
penological
interest
may
consider
evidence
regulation
satisfy
reasonable
relationship
standard
iii
applying
analysis
missouri
rule
barring
correspondence
conclude
record
clearly
demonstrates
regulation
reasonably
related
legitimate
security
interests
find
marriage
restriction
however
satisfy
reasonable
relationship
standard
rather
constitutes
exaggerated
response
petitioners
rehabilitation
security
concerns
according
testimony
trial
missouri
correspondence
provision
promulgated
primarily
security
reasons
prison
officials
testified
mail
institutions
used
communicate
escape
plans
arrange
assaults
violent
acts
tr
witnesses
stated
missouri
division
corrections
growing
problem
prison
gangs
restricting
communications
among
gang
members
transferring
gang
members
different
institutions
restricting
correspondence
important
element
combating
problem
officials
also
testified
use
renz
facility
provide
protective
custody
certain
inmates
compromised
permitting
correspondence
inmates
renz
inmates
correctional
institutions
prohibition
correspondence
institutions
logically
connected
legitimate
security
concerns
undoubtedly
communication
felons
potential
spur
criminal
behavior
sort
contact
frequently
prohibited
even
inmate
released
parole
see
cfr
federal
parole
conditioned
nonassociation
known
criminals
unless
permission
granted
parole
officer
missouri
prisons
danger
coordinated
criminal
activity
exacerbated
presence
prison
gangs
missouri
policy
separating
isolating
gang
members
strategy
frequently
used
control
gang
activity
see
camp
camp
dept
justice
prison
gangs
extent
nature
impact
prisons
logically
furthered
restriction
correspondence
moreover
correspondence
regulation
deprive
prisoners
means
expression
rather
bars
communication
limited
class
people
prison
officials
particular
cause
concerned
inmates
institutions
within
missouri
prison
system
also
think
appeals
analysis
overlooks
impact
respondents
asserted
right
inmates
prison
personnel
prison
officials
stated
expert
opinion
correspondence
prison
institutions
facilitates
development
informal
organizations
threaten
core
functions
prison
administration
maintaining
safety
internal
security
result
correspondence
rights
asserted
respondents
like
organizational
activities
issue
jones
north
carolina
prisoners
union
exercised
cost
significantly
less
liberty
safety
everyone
else
guards
prisoners
alike
indeed
potential
ripple
effect
even
broader
jones
exercise
right
affects
inmates
staff
one
institution
exercise
right
requires
kind
tradeoff
think
choice
made
corrections
officials
judgment
peculiarly
within
province
professional
expertise
pell
procunier
lightly
set
aside
courts
finally
obvious
easy
alternatives
policy
adopted
petitioners
prison
systems
including
federal
bureau
prisons
concluded
substantially
similar
restrictions
inmate
correspondence
necessary
protect
institutional
order
security
see
cfr
petitioners
shown
alternative
proffered
claimant
prisoners
monitoring
inmate
correspondence
clearly
impose
de
minimis
cost
pursuit
legitimate
corrections
goals
prison
officials
testified
impossible
read
every
piece
correspondence
tr
consequently
appreciable
risk
missing
dangerous
messages
event
prisoners
easily
write
jargon
codes
prevent
detection
real
messages
see
camp
camp
supra
noting
frequent
use
coded
correspondence
gang
members
federal
prison
see
also
brief
state
texas
amicus
curiae
risk
missing
dangerous
communications
taken
together
sheer
burden
staff
resources
required
conduct
censorship
see
tr
supports
judgment
prison
officials
alternative
adequate
alternative
restricting
correspondence
prohibition
correspondence
reasonably
related
valid
corrections
goals
rule
content
neutral
logically
advances
goals
institutional
security
safety
identified
missouri
prison
officials
exaggerated
response
objectives
basis
conclude
regulation
unconstitutionally
abridge
first
amendment
rights
prison
inmates
support
marriage
regulation
petitioners
first
suggest
rule
deprive
prisoners
constitutionally
protected
right
concede
decision
marry
fundamental
right
zablocki
redhail
loving
virginia
imply
different
rule
obtain
prison
forum
see
brief
petitioners
petitioners
argue
even
regulation
burdens
inmates
constitutional
rights
restriction
tested
reasonableness
standard
urge
restriction
reasonably
related
legitimate
security
rehabilitation
concerns
disagree
petitioners
zablocki
apply
prison
inmates
settled
prison
inmate
retains
constitutional
rights
inconsistent
status
prisoner
legitimate
penological
objectives
corrections
system
pell
procunier
supra
right
marry
like
many
rights
subject
substantial
restrictions
result
incarceration
many
important
attributes
marriage
remain
however
taking
account
limitations
imposed
prison
life
first
inmate
marriages
like
others
expressions
emotional
support
public
commitment
elements
important
significant
aspect
marital
relationship
addition
many
religions
recognize
marriage
spiritual
significance
inmates
spouses
therefore
commitment
marriage
may
exercise
religious
faith
well
expression
personal
dedication
third
inmates
eventually
released
parole
commutation
therefore
inmate
marriages
formed
expectation
ultimately
fully
consummated
finally
marital
status
often
precondition
receipt
government
benefits
social
security
benefits
property
rights
tenancy
entirety
inheritance
rights
less
tangible
benefits
legitimation
children
born
wedlock
incidents
marriage
like
religious
personal
aspects
marriage
commitment
unaffected
fact
confinement
pursuit
legitimate
corrections
goals
taken
together
conclude
remaining
elements
sufficient
form
constitutionally
protected
marital
relationship
prison
context
decision
butler
wilson
summarily
affirming
johnson
rockefeller
supp
sdny
contrary
case
involved
prohibition
marriage
inmates
sentenced
life
imprisonment
importantly
denial
right
part
punishment
crime
see
lasker
concurring
part
dissenting
part
asserted
governmental
interest
punishing
crime
sufficiently
important
justify
deprivation
right
see
generally
mandel
bradley
summary
affirmance
affirmance
judgment
rationale
affirmance
may
gleaned
solely
opinion
missouri
marriage
regulation
prohibits
inmates
marrying
unless
prison
superintendent
approved
marriage
finding
compelling
reasons
noted
previously
generally
pregnancy
birth
child
considered
compelling
reason
approve
marriage
determining
whether
regulation
impermissibly
burdens
right
marry
note
initially
regulation
prohibits
marriages
inmates
civilians
well
marriages
inmates
see
brief
petitioners
although
urged
respondents
implication
interests
nonprisoners
may
support
application
martinez
standard
regulation
may
entail
consequential
restriction
constitutional
rights
prisoners
see
procunier
martinez
need
reach
question
however
even
reasonable
relationship
test
marriage
regulation
withstand
scrutiny
petitioners
identified
security
rehabilitation
concerns
support
marriage
prohibition
security
concern
emphasized
petitioners
love
triangles
might
lead
violent
confrontations
inmates
see
brief
petitioners
respect
rehabilitation
prison
officials
testified
female
prisoners
often
subject
abuse
home
overly
dependent
male
figures
dependence
abuse
connected
crimes
committed
tr
superintendent
renz
petitioner
william
turner
testified
view
women
prisoners
needed
concentrate
developing
skills
prohibition
marriage
furthered
rehabilitative
goal
petitioners
emphasize
prohibition
marriage
understood
light
superintendent
turner
experience
several
marriage
requests
female
inmates
brief
petitioners
conclude
record
missouri
prison
regulation
written
reasonably
related
penological
interests
doubt
legitimate
security
concerns
may
require
placing
reasonable
restrictions
upon
inmate
right
marry
may
justify
requiring
approval
superintendent
missouri
regulation
however
represents
exaggerated
response
security
objectives
obvious
easy
alternatives
missouri
regulation
accommodate
right
marry
imposing
de
minimis
burden
pursuit
security
objectives
see
cfr
marriage
inmates
federal
prison
generally
permitted
warden
finds
presents
threat
security
order
institution
public
safety
aware
place
record
prison
officials
testified
ready
alternatives
fully
satisfy
security
concerns
moreover
respect
security
concern
emphasized
petitioners
brief
creation
love
triangles
petitioners
pointed
nothing
record
suggesting
marriage
regulation
viewed
preventing
entanglements
common
sense
likewise
suggests
logical
connection
marriage
restriction
formation
love
triangles
surely
prisons
housing
male
female
prisoners
inmate
rivalries
likely
develop
without
formal
marriage
ceremony
one
finally
instance
ripple
effect
security
fellow
inmates
prison
staff
justifies
broad
restriction
inmates
rights
indeed
inmate
wishes
marry
civilian
decision
marry
apart
logistics
wedding
ceremony
completely
private
one
record
marriage
restriction
reasonably
related
articulated
rehabilitation
goal
first
requiring
refusal
permission
absent
finding
compelling
reason
allow
marriage
rule
sweeps
much
broadly
explained
petitioners
penological
objectives
missouri
prison
officials
testified
generally
experienced
problem
marriage
male
inmates
see
tr
district
found
marriages
routinely
allowed
matter
practice
missouri
correctional
institutions
prior
adoption
rule
proffered
justification
thus
explain
adoption
rule
banning
marriages
inmates
account
prohibition
inmate
marriages
civilians
missouri
prison
officials
testified
generally
objection
marriages
see
tr
superintendent
turner
testified
usually
object
marriage
either
male
female
prisoners
civilians
rehabilitation
concern
appears
record
centered
almost
exclusively
female
inmates
marrying
inmates
exfelons
account
ban
marriages
moreover
although
necessary
disposition
case
note
record
rehabilitative
objective
asserted
support
regulation
suspect
several
female
inmates
whose
marriage
requests
discussed
prison
officials
trial
one
refused
basis
fostering
excessive
dependency
district
found
missouri
prison
system
operated
basis
excessive
paternalism
proposed
marriages
female
inmates
scrutinized
carefully
even
adoption
current
regulation
one
approved
renz
period
whereas
marriages
male
inmates
period
routinely
approved
kind
lopsided
rehabilitation
concern
provide
justification
broad
missouri
marriage
rule
undisputed
missouri
prison
officials
may
regulate
time
circumstances
marriage
ceremony
takes
place
see
brief
respondents
record
however
almost
complete
ban
decision
marry
reasonably
related
legitimate
penological
objectives
conclude
therefore
missouri
marriage
regulation
facially
invalid
iv
uphold
facial
validity
correspondence
regulation
conclude
marriage
rule
constitutionally
infirm
read
petitioners
additional
challenge
district
findings
fact
claim
district
erred
holding
correspondence
regulation
applied
prison
officials
arbitrary
capricious
manner
appeals
address
question
remand
issue
appeals
consideration
accordingly
judgment
appeals
striking
missouri
marriage
regulation
affirmed
judgment
invalidating
correspondence
rule
reversed
case
remanded
appeals
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
suggesting
little
difference
unnecessarily
sweeping
standard
applied
district
reaching
judgment
reasonableness
standard
described
part
ii
see
post
justice
stevens
complains
ignore
findings
fact
made
district
post
improperly
encroach
ed
factfinding
domain
district
post
district
inquiry
whether
regulations
needlessly
broad
semantically
different
standard
articulated
part
ii
least
restrictive
alternative
test
procunier
martinez
martinez
passage
quoted
district
limitation
first
amendment
freedoms
must
greater
necessary
essential
protection
particular
governmental
interest
involved
thus
restriction
inmate
correspondence
invalid
sweep
unnecessarily
broad
emphasis
added
justice
stevens
charge
appellate
factfinding
likewise
suffers
flawed
premise
part
answers
question
justice
stevens
pose
namely
whether
correspondence
regulation
satisfies
strict
scrutiny
thus
conclusion
logical
connection
security
concerns
identified
petitioners
ban
correspondence
see
supra
becomes
justice
stevens
hands
searching
examination
record
determine
whether
sufficient
proof
inmate
correspondence
actually
led
escape
plot
uprising
gang
violence
renz
see
post
likewise
conclusion
monitoring
inmate
correspondence
clearly
impose
de
minimis
cost
pursuit
legitimate
corrections
goals
supra
described
factual
finding
insurmountable
task
read
correspondence
sent
received
inmates
renz
post
nowhere
course
make
finding
necessary
unless
one
applying
least
restrictive
means
test
finally
justice
stevens
complains
renz
ban
inmate
correspondence
reasonably
related
legitimate
corrections
goals
restrictive
rule
missouri
institutions
previous
decisions
make
clear
however
constitution
mandate
lowest
common
denominator
security
standard
whereby
practice
permitted
one
penal
institution
must
permitted
institutions
bell
wolfish
renz
raises
different
security
concerns
missouri
institutions
houses
medium
maximum
security
prisoners
facility
without
walls
guard
towers
used
house
inmates
protective
custody
moreover
renz
rule
consistent
practice
institutions
including
institutions
federal
system
see
brief
amicus
curiae
justice
stevens
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
justice
blackmun
join
concurring
part
dissenting
part
describes
standard
review
prison
regulation
infringes
fundamental
constitutional
rights
often
far
less
consequence
inmates
actual
showing
demands
state
order
uphold
regulation
case
provides
prime
example
appear
much
difference
question
whether
prison
regulation
burdens
fundamental
rights
quest
security
needlessly
broad
standard
applied
district
appeals
requirement
regulation
must
reasonably
related
legitimate
penological
interests
ante
may
represent
exaggerated
response
concerns
ante
standard
satisfied
nothing
logical
connection
regulation
legitimate
penological
concern
perceived
cautious
warden
see
ante
emphasis
original
virtually
meaningless
application
standard
seem
permit
disregard
inmates
constitutional
rights
whenever
imagination
warden
produces
plausible
security
concern
deferential
trial
able
discern
logical
connection
concern
challenged
regulation
indeed
logical
connection
prison
discipline
use
bullwhips
prisoners
security
logically
furthered
total
ban
inmate
communication
inmates
also
outsiders
conceivably
might
interested
arranging
attack
within
prison
escape
thus
dissent
part
ii
opinion
able
join
part
invalidation
marriage
regulation
rely
rejection
standard
review
stringent
one
announced
part
ii
see
ante
part
concludes
careful
examination
even
applying
reasonableness
standard
marriage
regulation
must
fail
justifications
asserted
behalf
lack
record
support
part
however
based
application
newly
minted
standard
see
ante
also
represents
product
plainly
improper
appellate
encroachment
factfinding
domain
district
see
icicle
seafoods
worthington
indeed
fundamental
difference
appeals
case
principal
point
dissent
rests
respective
ways
two
courts
examined
made
use
trial
record
opinion
appeals
correctly
held
trial
findings
fact
adequately
supported
judgment
sustaining
inmates
challenge
mail
regulation
administered
renz
correctional
center
cedar
city
missouri
contrast
sifts
trial
testimony
order
uphold
general
prohibition
correspondence
unrelated
inmates
case
particularly
helpful
begin
determining
proper
standard
review
result
preliminary
activity
somehow
lighten
duty
decide
case
precise
issue
us
evident
respondents
complaint
makes
clear
launching
exclusively
facial
attack
correspondence
regulation
respondents
instead
leveled
primary
challenge
application
regulation
mail
addressed
sent
inmates
renz
information
belief
correspondence
members
different
institutions
within
missouri
division
correction
system
permitted
institutions
exception
renz
information
belief
defendant
turner
employees
missouri
division
corrections
pattern
practice
refusing
permit
inmates
renz
correspond
receive
letters
inmates
correctional
institutions
situation
appears
unique
within
missouri
division
corrections
information
belief
reason
given
refusing
correspondence
superintendent
turner
feels
correspondence
inmates
best
interest
inmate
manner
defendant
turner
violated
constitutional
right
every
inmate
residing
renz
inmate
desires
correspond
inmate
residing
renz
amended
complaint
app
provisions
divisional
correspondence
regulation
allowing
team
inmate
prohibit
correspondence
followed
renz
theoretically
team
uses
psychological
reports
conduct
violations
progress
reports
deciding
whether
permit
correspondence
renz
however
rule
practiced
inmates
may
write
inmates
receive
mail
inmates
restrictive
practice
set
forth
renz
inmate
orientation
booklet
presented
inmate
upon
arrival
renz
restrictive
rule
renz
commonly
known
throughout
missouri
correctional
system
renz
rule
correspondence
enforced
without
determination
security
order
renz
rehabilitation
inmate
harmed
allowing
particular
correspondence
proceed
without
determination
less
restrictive
alternative
resolve
legitimate
concerns
department
corrections
short
prohibiting
correspondence
inmates
institutions
missouri
correctional
system
permitted
correspond
inmates
institutions
greatest
restriction
inmate
correspondence
practiced
renz
supp
wd
mo
correspondence
inmates
denied
despite
evidence
correspondence
desired
simply
maintain
wholesome
friendships
even
restriction
correspondence
justified
regulations
practices
bar
must
fall
prohibitions
unnecessarily
sweeping
correspondence
sufficiently
protected
right
cut
simply
recipient
another
prison
inmates
demonstrate
special
cause
correspondence
defendants
failed
demonstrate
needs
renz
sufficiently
different
justify
greater
censorship
applied
institutions
ithout
strong
evidence
relationship
question
abusive
connection
permitting
desired
correspondence
marriage
subsequent
commission
crime
caused
thereby
simply
tenuous
justify
denial
constitutionally
protected
rights
security
concerns
think
prison
officials
authority
open
read
prisoner
mail
sufficient
meet
problem
illegal
conspiracies
emphasis
added
ostensible
breadth
appeals
opinion
furnishes
license
reverse
another
unnecessarily
broad
holding
moreover
even
newly
minted
standard
findings
district
upheld
appeals
clearly
dictate
affirmance
judgment
ii
without
explicitly
disagreeing
district
findings
fact
rejects
trial
judge
conclusion
total
ban
correspondence
inmates
renz
unrelated
inmates
correctional
facilities
unnecessarily
sweeping
use
language
seems
prefer
exaggerated
response
security
problems
predicted
petitioner
expert
witnesses
instead
bases
holding
upon
highly
selective
use
factual
evidence
reasons
advances
support
conclusion
include
speculation
possible
gang
problems
escapes
secret
codes
ante
fact
correspondence
regulation
deprive
prisoners
means
expression
ante
testimony
indicating
impossible
read
every
piece
correspondence
ante
none
reasons
sufficient
basis
record
support
holding
mail
regulation
speculation
possible
adverse
consequences
allowing
inmates
different
institutions
correspond
one
another
found
testimony
three
witnesses
william
turner
superintendent
renz
correctional
center
sally
halford
director
kansas
correctional
institution
lansing
david
blackwell
former
director
division
adult
institutions
missouri
department
corrections
superintendent
turner
unable
offer
proof
prohibiting
correspondence
prevented
formation
dissemination
escape
plots
merely
asserted
mail
regulation
assisted
duties
maintain
security
renz
rom
standpoint
escapes
problems
experienced
institutions
tr
superintendent
testimony
establish
permitting
correspondence
create
security
risk
surmise
mail
policy
inhibit
communications
institutions
early
stages
uprising
superintendent
testimony
entirely
consistent
district
conclusion
correspondence
regulation
exaggerated
response
potential
gang
problem
renz
neither
outside
witnesses
special
knowledge
conditions
renz
halford
reviewed
prison
rules
regulations
relevant
case
discussed
case
superintendent
turner
visited
renz
couple
hours
blackwell
charged
overall
management
missouri
adult
correctional
facilities
make
daily
decisions
concerning
inmate
correspondence
permitted
renz
sure
specifically
familiar
policy
renz
inmate
allowed
correspond
inmates
institutions
members
inmate
immediate
family
neither
indeed
witness
even
mentioned
possibility
use
secret
codes
inmates
kansas
witness
testified
kansas
followed
policy
open
correspondence
inmate
write
whomever
please
identified
two
problems
might
result
policy
first
preceding
year
male
inmate
escaped
minimum
security
area
helped
female
inmate
escape
remain
large
week
witness
speculated
must
used
mails
plan
escape
trial
judge
discounted
testimony
proof
escape
discussed
correspondence
second
kansas
witness
suggested
ban
inmate
correspondence
frustrate
development
gang
problem
view
acknowledgment
gang
problem
developed
kansas
despite
open
correspondence
rule
trial
judge
presumably
also
attached
little
weight
prediction
indeed
certain
irony
fact
kansas
expert
witness
unable
persuade
superiors
kansas
prohibit
correspondence
yet
apparently
finds
reason
discount
speculative
testimony
missouri
witness
blackwell
also
testified
one
method
trying
discourage
organization
gangs
prisoners
ethnic
religious
similarities
restricting
correspondence
testify
however
total
ban
correspondence
appropriate
response
potential
gang
problem
indeed
stated
state
policy
include
carte
blanche
denial
correspondence
even
know
renz
enforcing
total
ban
assertion
open
correspondence
policy
pose
security
problems
backed
speculation
sure
inmates
renz
write
inmates
facilities
illegitimate
fashion
also
feel
certain
probability
writing
things
sound
positive
letter
writing
given
nature
offenders
renz
percentage
mail
renz
correctional
center
personally
read
little
basically
speculating
inmates
might
write
yes
also
relies
fact
inmates
renz
totally
deprived
opportunity
communicate
outside
world
observation
simply
irrelevant
question
whether
restrictions
enforced
unnecessarily
broad
moreover
evenhanded
acceptance
sort
argument
require
upholding
renz
marriage
regulation
quite
properly
invalidates
regulation
also
even
restrictive
final
reason
concluding
renz
prohibition
correspondence
reasonable
belief
impossible
read
correspondence
sent
received
inmates
renz
finding
impossibility
made
district
supported
findings
make
record
tells
us
nothing
total
volume
inmate
mail
sent
received
renz
much
less
indicate
many
letters
sent
received
inmates
institutions
state
observed
oral
argument
volume
correspondence
difficulty
position
case
since
never
permitted
mail
inmates
idea
except
say
know
except
inmates
figured
write
tr
oral
arg
staff
renz
able
scan
control
outgoing
incoming
mail
including
correspondence
iii
contrasts
acceptance
challenge
marriage
regulation
overbroad
rejection
challenge
correspondence
rule
striking
puzzling
inexplicably
expresses
different
views
security
concerns
common
prison
marriages
prison
mail
marriage
context
expert
speculation
security
problems
associated
love
triangles
summarily
rejected
mail
context
speculation
potential
gang
problem
possible
use
codes
prisoners
receives
virtually
total
deference
moreover
correctly
dismisses
defense
marriage
rule
speculation
inmate
spouse
released
incarceration
attempt
aid
inmate
escaping
grants
virtually
total
credence
similar
speculation
escape
plans
concealed
letters
addition
disregards
considerations
relies
invalidate
marriage
regulation
turns
mail
regulation
marriage
rule
said
sweep
broadly
restrictive
routine
practices
missouri
correctional
institutions
mail
rule
renz
exaggerated
response
even
though
restrictive
practices
remainder
state
finds
rehabilitative
value
marriage
apparent
dismisses
value
corresponding
friend
also
inmate
reason
communication
outside
world
totally
prohibited
relies
district
finding
marriage
regulation
operated
basis
excessive
paternalism
toward
female
inmates
ante
rejects
factual
findings
correspondence
regulation
unfathomably
rejecting
superintendent
concerns
love
triangles
insufficient
invalid
basis
marriage
regulation
apparently
accepts
concerns
valid
basis
mail
regulation
pointing
inconsistencies
suggest
treatment
marriage
regulation
flawed
stated
concur
fully
part
opinion
suggest
consistent
application
reasoning
necessarily
leads
finding
mail
regulation
applied
renz
unconstitutional
iv
extent
affirms
judgment
appeals
concur
opinion
respectfully
dissent
partial
reversal
judgment
basis
selective
forays
record
language
deference
security
set
one
side
erratic
use
record
affirm
appeals
partially
may
rest
unarticulated
assumption
marital
state
fundamentally
different
exchange
mail
satisfaction
solace
support
affords
confined
inmate
even
difference
recognized
literature
history
anthropology
text
constitution
clearly
protects
right
communicate
right
marry
case
rights
receive
constitutional
recognition
protection
footnotes
cites
portions
trial
transcript
amicus
curiae
brief
filed
state
texas
ante
completely
ignores
findings
fact
made
district
bind
appellate
courts
unless
clearly
erroneous
fed
rule
civ
proc
deem
particular
findings
clearly
erroneous
supp
wd
mo
appeals
may
used
unnecessarily
sweeping
language
opinion
conclude
exchange
mail
presumptively
dangerous
inherently
inconsistent
legitimate
penological
objectives
therefore
affirm
district
application
martinez
strict
scrutiny
standard
decision
finding
renz
correspondence
rule
unconstitutional
superintendent
turner
experienced
problem
gang
warfare
renz
tr
found
correspondence
gang
members
coming
renz
also
conceded
possible
screen
correspondence
posed
danger
leading
gang
warfare
reason
read
correspondence
institutions
determine
people
writing
gang
warfare
something
like
think
standpoint
dictates
department
course
dictates
problem
standpoint
dealing
people
individually
personally
problem
ibid
let
limit
people
suspect
might
involved
gang
warfare
example
reason
say
impossible
read
mail
particular
people
know
identified
impossible
irony
missouri
ostensibly
sufficient
resources
permit
screen
mail
kansas
apparently
lacks
sufficient
resources
ban
halford
testified
open
correspondence
abrogated
kansas
correctional
system
despite
security
concerns
superiors
felt
much
effort
restrict
tied
staff
send
forms
various
sundry
institutions
think
basically
agreement
even
though
problem
open
correspondence
reason
simply
staff
time
inmates
allowed
write
find
necessary
stop
correspondence
matter
course
true
stop
matter
course
authorize
matter
course
carte
blanche
approval
denial
facility
done
case
case
individual
basis
let
refer
specifically
saying
carte
blanche
denial
inmates
told
renz
correctional
center
division
policy
carte
blanche
deny
approve
know
rule
renz
write
institutions
unless
inmate
relative
certain
rule
let
hand
plaintiffs
exhibit
excuse
defendants
exhibit
plaintiffs
number
evidence
inmate
orientation
manual
february
direct
attention
paragraph
says
correspondence
inmates
institutions
permitted
immediate
family
members
familiar
policy
renz
correctional
center
sure
specifically
time
trial
renz
correctional
center
contained
male
female
prisoners
varying
security
level
classifications
female
inmates
medium
maximum
security
offenders
male
inmates
minimum
security
offenders
question
realize
plaintiffs
case
accept
rights
division
corrections
read
mail
division
wants
way
read
mail
want
tr
let
hand
exhibit
sir
mail
visiting
rule
department
corrections
specifically
concerning
inmate
mail
signed
direct
attention
paragraph
outgoing
letters
sealed
inmate
paragraph
letters
may
inspected
mail
room
examined
contraband
escape
plots
forgery
fraud
schemes
tell
sir
examine
letter
escape
plot
without
reading
read
mail
say
mail
read
time
read
letter
reason
believe
example
escape
planned
hen
letter
planned
way
want
know
read
inmate
mail
impossible
kansas
rules
regulations
allow
us
read
incoming
mail
due
volume
mail
absolutely
impossible
average
population
renz
fiscal
year
see
american
correctional
juvenile
adult
correctional
departments
institutions
agencies
paroling
authorities
halford
asked
prison
officials
read
inmate
mail
gave
response
begin
boring
reading
another
thing
think
poor
use
staff
time
get
staff
like
something
important
reading
inmate
mail
seems
kind
waste
time
tr
speculation
ante
ability
prisoners
use
codes
based
suggestion
amicus
curiae
brief
see
brief
state
texas
amicus
curiae
totally
unsupported
record
evidence
see
aba
standards
criminal
justice
commentary
ed
risoners
write
length
choose
using
language
desire
correspondents
selection
including
present
former
prisoners
controls
govern
public
large
american
correctional
association
set
forth
current
standards
deemed
appropriate
detention
facility
managers
recognized
organizations
representing
corrections
aca
standards
adult
local
detention
facilities
xiii
ed
standard
requires
clear
convincing
evidence
justify
limitations
reasons
public
safety
facility
order
security
volume
length
language
content
source
mail
inmate
may
send
receive
bifurcated
treatment
mail
marriage
regulations
leads
absurd
result
inmate
renz
may
marry
another
inmate
may
carry
courtship
leading
marriage
corresponding
beforehand
immediate
family
member
explaining
request
inmate
diana
finley
married
inmate
william
quillam
denied
superintendent
turner
stated
gets
got
security
problems
threat
man
gets
penitentiary
married
wants
wife
little
stop
escape
institution
security
sophisticated
security
like
maximum
security
institution
tr
see
also
one
superintendent
turner
articulated
reasons
preventing
one
female
inmate
corresponding
male
inmate
closely
tracks
love
triangle
rationale
advanced
marriage
regulation
let
take
ms
flowers
know
reason
allowed
write
barks
yes
two
men
one
wants
get
married
another
man
involved
renz
resides
barks
let
ask
mentioned
two
three
occasions
people
want
get
married
one
man
understanding
possible
relationship
woman
man
one
intending
get
married
well
speak
love
want
marry
two
people
think
one
going
cut
short
given
example
problem
opinion
justifies
restrictions
correspondence
say
two
men
corresponding
particular
woman
also
possible
call
two
men
chat
office
try
resolve
see
necessary
position
female
inmate
finds
somebody
new
institution
person
gets
pa
roled
write
new
fellow
two
situations
therefore
say
positive
triggering
security
concerns
situation
wholesome
situation
suppose
comes
says
want
write
old
fellow
anymore
want
write
new
fellow
allowed
write
new
fellow
still
problem
inmate
makes
decision
write
female
inmate
makes
decision
write
another
male
inmate
ca
write
anybody
keep
saying
females
situation
male
exist
example
male
offender
believed
love
female
offender
another
male
offender
wants
cause
difficulty
start
rumor
confront
man
seeing
someone
else
corresponding
someone
else
caused
variety
security
problems
way
love
triangles
situations
emphasis
added
well
many
times
love
affairs
develop
inmate
inside
becomes
extremely
worried
female
inmate
thinks
messing
around
somebody
else
kind
things
becomes
agitated
worried
frustrated
type
thing
professional
opinion
cause
bad
things
might
even
cause
explode
hurt
someone
attempt
escape
found
constitutional
violation
district
broad
discretion
fashioning
appropriate
remedy
cf
paradise
stevens
concurring
judgment
difficulties
correspondence
policy
likely
impose
prison
officials
screening
mail
bear
shaping
appropriate
remedy
improper
however
rely
speculation
difficulties
obliterate
effective
judicial
review
state
actions
abridge
prisoner
constitutional
right
send
receive
mail