Human Rights Defense Center v. Sherburne County, Minnesota

Background

Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC), a nonprofit organization, publishes and distributes Prison Legal News and Criminal Legal News, along with books and other information about prisons and incarcerated people. HRDC sends its publications to correctional facilities and alleged that Sherburne County, Sheriff Joel Brott, and other defendants refused to deliver the publications to inmates at the Sherburne County Jail.

The jail’s mail and contraband policies prohibited inmates from possessing magazines and personal newspapers. The policies allowed letters, emails, and soft-covered books from a publisher or vendor. The jail also provided copies of the Minneapolis Star Tribune in common areas and gave inmates access to library and legal materials. Jail officials stated that magazines and newspapers could create security, safety, fire, sanitation, contraband, and staffing problems.

HRDC alleged that the policies and refusal to deliver its publications violated its First Amendment right to communicate with incarcerated people. It also alleged that the defendants violated its Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights by failing to give HRDC notice of the rejected publications or an opportunity to challenge the rejection. HRDC moved for a preliminary injunction—an order providing temporary relief before the case is finally decided.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the four-factor test for a preliminary injunction: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance of harms, and the public interest.

For the First Amendment claim, the court applied the standard from Turner v. Safley, under which a prison regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to a legitimate prison-management interest. The court found that the jail’s stated security and safety concerns were rationally connected to the ban at this preliminary stage. It also found that the policy appeared neutral because it applied to all magazines and newspapers rather than targeting particular content.

The court concluded that HRDC had alternative ways to communicate with inmates, including letters and emails, and that HRDC had not shown it had explored donating books to the jail library. The court further found that allowing personal magazines and newspapers could significantly increase the burden on jail staff and resources because publications would need to be sorted and inspected. Although HRDC proposed allowing the jail to review publications individually, the court concluded that the increased security risk and administrative burden would be more than minimal. All four Turner factors therefore favored the defendants, and HRDC had not shown that it was likely to succeed on its First Amendment claim.

For the due-process claim, the court noted that courts disagree about the process owed to a publisher when a correctional facility rejects mail under a generally applicable rule, such as a ban on all magazines. The court also noted that neither party had identified, and the court had not found, an Eighth Circuit decision addressing the issue. Because the law was unsettled and the record was limited, the court could not conclude that HRDC was likely to succeed on this claim.

The court also found that HRDC’s delay weakened its claim of irreparable harm. HRDC alleged that the jail had refused its publications since at least June 2019 but did not file the lawsuit and injunction motion until August 2020. The balance of harms slightly favored the defendants because an injunction would require a new mail policy, staff training, and additional resources. The court found that the public-interest factor favored neither side, although it recognized both the interest in protecting constitutional rights and the interest in maintaining jail safety and security.

Disposition

Judge Ann D. Montgomery denied HRDC’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The order did not state that HRDC’s underlying claims were dismissed or finally decided.