Ivey v. Johnston

Background

Christopher Ivey and Eugene Banks are civilly committed residents of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). They alleged that MSOP policies completely restricting internet access and partially restricting television access violated their free-speech and voting rights under the Minnesota and United States Constitutions. They sought a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring MSOP to provide access to specified websites and additional television channels before the November 6, 2018, general election.

A magistrate judge recommended denying the motion. Ivey and Banks filed objections, which required the district court to independently review the challenged portions of the recommendation.

Court’s Analysis

The court overruled the objections and adopted the recommendation.

For the free-speech claims, the court applied the modified standard used in this District for constitutional claims by civilly committed people. Under that standard, the plaintiffs had to show, among other things, that the challenged policy lacked a valid rational connection to a legitimate government interest and that they lacked an alternative way to exercise their constitutional right.

MSOP officials stated that the internet ban and television restrictions protected minors and prevented residents from being exposed to stimuli that could harm their rehabilitation. The court found that these were legitimate government interests and that the restrictions had a valid rational connection to those interests. It also found that the plaintiffs had not disputed their access to mail, telephone, newspapers, magazines, radio, and some television channels. Because those sources provided political information, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had an adequate alternative means of informing themselves. The court further explained that the restrictions did not have to be the least restrictive means of serving the government’s interests.

The court rejected the argument that the restrictions violated a constitutional right to be politically informed or the right to vote. The plaintiffs did not claim that they were prevented from casting a vote, and the court stated that they had voted routinely and had previously participated in political processes. The court also concluded that they had access to sufficient information to inform themselves politically.

Finally, the court found that the Supreme Court’s decision in Packingham v. North Carolina did not control the case. That decision involved a law restricting certain social-media access by registered sex offenders, including some people no longer supervised by the criminal-justice system. The plaintiffs here were confined, so the court concluded that different standards applied.

Disposition

The court adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denied the plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The court ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.