Schnell v. Schnell

Background

Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) is a non-profit organization that publishes and distributes books and other materials on criminal justice, health, legal issues, and the rights of incarcerated people. Its publications include guides on correspondence education programs, habeas corpus (court-ordered release) proceedings, and health and safety rights for prisoners.

In October 2024, the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) revised its mail policy to allow incarcerated individuals to receive books only from vendors on an approved list. At launch, only three commercial publishers — Hamilton Books, Harper Collins, and Penguin Random House — were approved. The DOC explained this was to prevent drugs from being smuggled into facilities hidden in books. The list was later expanded to include additional publishers and several non-profit organizations, but HRDC was never added.

HRDC sent a letter to the DOC in November 2024 demanding the policy be rescinded; the DOC did not respond. Between May and November 2025, HRDC sent books and other materials to individuals in DOC custody; 53 items were returned, some marked "Unauthorized Vendor." HRDC alleges it received no notice that items were being rejected and no opportunity to appeal.

In March 2025, the DOC posted a vendor application form that outside vendors could use to apply for approved status. According to HRDC, the form was not publicly available until February 2026. The form asked, among other things, whether the applicant currently provides books to other correctional facilities and whether the applicant has ever been denied permission to mail materials to a correctional facility. HRDC never submitted an application.

HRDC filed suit on January 7, 2026, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations, and moved for a preliminary injunction on April 21, 2026. A hearing was held on June 5, 2026.

Legal Standards

A preliminary injunction (a court order temporarily requiring or prohibiting action while a case proceeds) requires the moving party to show: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) threat of irreparable harm without relief; (3) that the balance of harms favors the movant; and (4) that the public interest supports relief. Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981). Likelihood of success is the most significant factor, and a likely First Amendment violation is generally presumed to satisfy the other factors. The court also noted that requests for injunctive relief in the prison context must be viewed with particular caution.

First Amendment Analysis — Turner Factors

To determine whether a policy violates the First Amendment rights of an organization seeking to communicate with prisoners, courts apply the Turner factors from Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), asking whether the policy is reasonably related to legitimate penological (prison management) interests. The burden is on the challenger to disprove the policy's validity.

Factor One: Rational Connection to a Legitimate Interest

The court accepted that preventing drug smuggling is a legitimate penological interest and that an approved-vendor policy is connected to that interest in the abstract. However, the court found that the way the DOC implemented its policy was not content-neutral. The DOC initially approved only large general-interest publishers with no application process, bypassing HRDC — a publisher that specializes in speech about prisoner rights. The DOC also initially approved Macmillan (a general publisher) even though its stated criterion was direct-order fulfillment, then later removed Macmillan when it discovered Macmillan used third-party fulfillment. HRDC, which uses direct-order fulfillment, was never approved. Additionally, the current policy has no published guidelines on how vendors are evaluated, leaving open the possibility of content-based discrimination. The court concluded HRDC had met its burden of showing the policy is not content-neutral and therefore not rationally related to legitimate governmental interest.

Factor Two: Alternative Means

The DOC argued that HRDC could simply apply using the Vendor Application Form, or that prisoners could access HRDC's materials through the DOC library system or the Law Library Service for Prisoners (LLSP). The court rejected both alternatives.

On the Vendor Application Form: the court found two questions overbroad and not rationally related to the DOC's stated objective of ensuring direct-order fulfillment. The question asking whether the applicant provides books to other correctional facilities is irrelevant to that objective. The question asking whether the applicant has ever been denied access to any correctional facility is overbroad and would impose a heavy burden on HRDC, which has sent materials to more than 3,000 facilities since 1990. (The court also noted, critically, that HRDC never submitted the form at all, suggesting it was more focused on litigation than on actually getting materials to prisoners.)

On the library system: the court found it is not a reasonable alternative for all of HRDC's publications. Not all facilities accept donated materials; library copies may be damaged; HRDC's books are lengthy and ill-suited to photocopying; and the LLSP limits responses to 80 pages or 8 items per two-week period. Although the library does provide some access (for example, one HRDC title is part of the DOC's standard Core Collection), the court found that not all books would be available to all prisoners.

Factor Three: Impact on Prison Resources and Safety

The court found this factor weighs in the DOC's favor. Allowing HRDC to deliver materials without approval would, in effect, require the DOC to allow any unapproved vendor to do the same, undermining the safety and security benefits the policy has produced. The DOC presented evidence that the current policies have significantly reduced drug-related incidents, staff assaults, and overdoses.

Factor Four: Ready Alternatives

The court rejected HRDC's proposals that the DOC either (a) deliver HRDC's books without any distinction from approved vendors, or (b) screen HRDC's books the same way it screens ordinary mail. The first proposal would eliminate the approved-vendor system entirely. The second was found impractical given the volume and page counts of books; the DOC maintained it is not possible to test every section of every page of every book. The court deferred to the DOC's institutional expertise on this point.

First Amendment Conclusion

Despite factors three and four weighing against HRDC, the court concluded HRDC demonstrated a likelihood of success on its First Amendment claim based on the lack of content-neutral implementation and the absence of published vendor-approval guidelines.

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Analysis

HRDC raised three due process arguments: (1) lack of published guidelines on vendor approval; (2) no notice before publications were rejected; and (3) no opportunity to appeal rejections.

On argument (1), the court found HRDC likely to succeed. A policy violates due process if it is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages discriminatory enforcement. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304 (2008). Although the policy clearly states what is prohibited (books from unapproved vendors), it provides no guidelines on how approval decisions are made, rendering it standardless.

On argument (2), the court found no due process violation. The "Unauthorized Vendor" return marking provided sufficient notice that all of HRDC's mailings were rejected for violating DOC policy. Due process does not require copy-by-copy notice when denials reflect routine enforcement of a rule of general applicability. Human Rts. Def. Ctr. v. Union Cnty., Ark., 111 F.4th 931, 935 (8th Cir. 2024).

On argument (3), the court found no due process violation. HRDC was not entitled to a formal appeal process because it challenged the validity of the policy itself, not the rejection of individual mailings. Id. at 936.

Remaining Dataphase Factors

Relief Granted

The court declined to grant HRDC's requested relief — an order barring the DOC from disapproving HRDC's publications solely because HRDC is not an approved vendor — because doing so would effectively eliminate the approved-vendor system and jeopardize facility safety.

Instead, the court issued the following orders:

1. Modified Vendor Application Form: Defendants must, within 60 days, submit to the court a revised form that removes the two overbroad questions (whether the applicant provides books to other correctional facilities, and whether the applicant has ever been denied access to a correctional facility). The DOC may optionally add a question about whether the applicant uses direct-order fulfillment or third-party fulfillment.

2. Published Guidelines: Defendants must, within 60 days, provide the court with evidence that the DOC has developed and disseminated written criteria for approving or rejecting vendors.

3. HRDC Must Apply: Before seeking further relief from the court, HRDC must submit an application using the modified form.

4. DOC Must Act: The DOC must approve or deny HRDC's application within 30 days of submission.

5. Denial Notice: For six months following release of the modified form, if the DOC denies any vendor's application submitted on the modified form, Defendants must immediately notify that vendor and the court of the grounds for denial.

The motion was denied in all other respects.