×
You have no more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Muslim Literature Bar Reversed, Medal Ban Upheld
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that denying
prisoners access to a newspaper entitled Muhammad Speaks" was violative
of the First Amendment, but it was within prison officials' discretion to
impose restrictions on medals worn around the neck. This action was filed
by two Nebraska prisoners, alleging their First Amendment rights were
violated when the prison denied them access to the Muhammad Speaks
newspaper and to a medallion bearing the picture of Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. with the inscription I have a dream.
The district court held the prison restriction as to the newspaper
constituted prior restraint and was violative of the First Amendment.
However, the restriction on medallions was within prison officials'
discretion because of their potential danger as a weapon. The Eighth
Circuit affirmed those rulings. The appeals court wrote to put emphasis on
the medallion restriction, rejecting as an intrusion on a prisoner's First
Amendment rights the granting of possession of some medals and not others
contingent upon their meeting an official standard of religious orthodoxy.
The judgment of the district court was affirmed. See: Rowland v. Jones,
452 F.2d 1005 (8th Cir. 1971).
prisoners access to a newspaper entitled Muhammad Speaks" was violative
of the First Amendment, but it was within prison officials' discretion to
impose restrictions on medals worn around the neck. This action was filed
by two Nebraska prisoners, alleging their First Amendment rights were
violated when the prison denied them access to the Muhammad Speaks
newspaper and to a medallion bearing the picture of Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. with the inscription I have a dream.
The district court held the prison restriction as to the newspaper
constituted prior restraint and was violative of the First Amendment.
However, the restriction on medallions was within prison officials'
discretion because of their potential danger as a weapon. The Eighth
Circuit affirmed those rulings. The appeals court wrote to put emphasis on
the medallion restriction, rejecting as an intrusion on a prisoner's First
Amendment rights the granting of possession of some medals and not others
contingent upon their meeting an official standard of religious orthodoxy.
The judgment of the district court was affirmed. See: Rowland v. Jones,
452 F.2d 1005 (8th Cir. 1971).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Rowland v. Jones
| Year | 1971 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 452 F.2d 1005 (8th Cir. 1971). |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | Granted |
Rowland v. Jones, 452 F.2d 1005 (8th Cir. 12/29/1971)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
[2] Nos. 71-1299, 71-1361
[3] 1971; 452 F.2d 1005
[4] December 29, 1971
[5] CURTIS EUGENE ROWLAND, INMATE, NEBRASKA PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, PEN UNIT, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD B. JONES, ASSOCIATE WARDEN, NEBRASKA PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, PEN UNIT, APPELLEE. CURTIS EUGENE ROWLAND AND CHARLES MCCLELLAND, INMATES OF THE PEN UNIT OF THE NEBRASKA PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, APPELLEES, V. WARDEN MAURICE H. SIGLER, NEBRASKA PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, APPELLANT
[6] Matthes, Chief Judge, Lay, Circuit Judge, and Hunter, District Judge.
[7] Author: Per Curiam
[8] Two issues are framed in these consolidated appeals: (1) whether state prison authorities may deny access to a newspaper entitled "Muhammad Speaks" and (2) whether a prisoner in the maximum security unit may be denied access to a medallion bearing the picture of Dr. Martin Luther King and the inscription "I have a dream."
[9] The district court ruled that the prison restrictions as to the newspaper constituted prior restraint and were violative of the First Amendment. However, the court held the restrictions imposed as to possession of medals worn around the neck to be within the discretion of prison authorities by reason of their potential danger as a weapon.
[10] We affirm the district court's analysis and result reached on both issues. 327 F. Supp. 821 (D.Neb.1971). In so doing we repeat the court's admonition drawn from Walker v. Blackwell, 411 F.2d 23, 29 (5 Cir. 1969), regarding access to reading materials:
[11] "This is not to say, of course, that the warden cannot invoke security measures to screen out possible messages and contraband from the pages. Further, should the newspaper ever develop a substantially inflammatory effect on prison inmates, it is at the warden's discretion to take action designed to avoid imminent prison violence."
[12] Likewise, we find the district court's ruling as to the medallion worthy of emphasis. The court, in upholding the discretion of prison officials in deciding what jewelry might be dangerous, ruled that there should be no discrimination in the application of this policy. The state argues that access should be denied on the ground that the medal does not qualify as a religious symbol. We reject as an intrusion of a prisoner's First Amendment rights the granting of possession of some medals and not others contingent upon their meeting an official standard of religious orthodoxy. Cf. United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184, 85 S. Ct. 850, 13 L. Ed. 2d 733 (1965); United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944); In re Weitzman, 426 F.2d 439, 458 (8 Cir. 1970) (concurring opinions of Judge Lay and Judge Heaney).
[13] Judgment affirmed.
[14] Disposition
[15] Affirmed.
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
[2] Nos. 71-1299, 71-1361
[3] 1971; 452 F.2d 1005
[4] December 29, 1971
[5] CURTIS EUGENE ROWLAND, INMATE, NEBRASKA PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, PEN UNIT, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD B. JONES, ASSOCIATE WARDEN, NEBRASKA PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, PEN UNIT, APPELLEE. CURTIS EUGENE ROWLAND AND CHARLES MCCLELLAND, INMATES OF THE PEN UNIT OF THE NEBRASKA PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, APPELLEES, V. WARDEN MAURICE H. SIGLER, NEBRASKA PENAL AND CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX, APPELLANT
[6] Matthes, Chief Judge, Lay, Circuit Judge, and Hunter, District Judge.
[7] Author: Per Curiam
[8] Two issues are framed in these consolidated appeals: (1) whether state prison authorities may deny access to a newspaper entitled "Muhammad Speaks" and (2) whether a prisoner in the maximum security unit may be denied access to a medallion bearing the picture of Dr. Martin Luther King and the inscription "I have a dream."
[9] The district court ruled that the prison restrictions as to the newspaper constituted prior restraint and were violative of the First Amendment. However, the court held the restrictions imposed as to possession of medals worn around the neck to be within the discretion of prison authorities by reason of their potential danger as a weapon.
[10] We affirm the district court's analysis and result reached on both issues. 327 F. Supp. 821 (D.Neb.1971). In so doing we repeat the court's admonition drawn from Walker v. Blackwell, 411 F.2d 23, 29 (5 Cir. 1969), regarding access to reading materials:
[11] "This is not to say, of course, that the warden cannot invoke security measures to screen out possible messages and contraband from the pages. Further, should the newspaper ever develop a substantially inflammatory effect on prison inmates, it is at the warden's discretion to take action designed to avoid imminent prison violence."
[12] Likewise, we find the district court's ruling as to the medallion worthy of emphasis. The court, in upholding the discretion of prison officials in deciding what jewelry might be dangerous, ruled that there should be no discrimination in the application of this policy. The state argues that access should be denied on the ground that the medal does not qualify as a religious symbol. We reject as an intrusion of a prisoner's First Amendment rights the granting of possession of some medals and not others contingent upon their meeting an official standard of religious orthodoxy. Cf. United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184, 85 S. Ct. 850, 13 L. Ed. 2d 733 (1965); United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944); In re Weitzman, 426 F.2d 439, 458 (8 Cir. 1970) (concurring opinions of Judge Lay and Judge Heaney).
[13] Judgment affirmed.
[14] Disposition
[15] Affirmed.