On September 25, 2024, North Carolina’s Department of Adult Correction (DAC) settled a federal civil rights suit filed by the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC) over censorship of PLN and HRDC’s other monthly publication, Criminal Legal News (CLN). The agreement obligates DAC to change policies related to incoming publications, deliver magazine back-­issues that it censored, and pay HRDC $1,200,000 in damages, attorney fees and costs.

HRDC sued DAC in federal district court for the Eastern District of North Carolina in November 2021 for censoring its publications and other mail to prisoners, as well as failing to provide notice of censorship decisions and an opportunity to appeal them. The suit also challenged DAC’s decision to place HRDC on its “disapproved publications” master list, effectively imposing a blanket ban on all publications and mail that the nonprofit attempted to send to DAC prisoners. In total, over 3,000 individual pieces of mail were rejected under this policy, including mail from prisoners to HRDC—in one instance even censoring a prisoner who attempted to donate funds from his trust account to HRDC.

In March 2024, the district court partially granted HRDC’s motion for summary judgment, finding that DAC’s blanket ban and numerous individual censorship decisions violated HRDC’s First Amendment rights; DAC’s failure to provide HRDC with notice of the censorship decisions and an opportunity to appeal them was also found to violate its due process rights, as PLN reported. [See: PLN, May 2024, pg. 47.] The case was scheduled for trial in December 2024. But after protracted negotiations, DAC agreed to a settlement.

First, DAC stipulated to change its Publications Policy to ensure that mailroom staff review every incoming publication, including CLN and PLN, within seven days upon arrival at a state prison. If rejected, a publication must then be reviewed by DAC’s Central Review Committee (CRC) within 28 days. Both prisoners and publishers are entitled to notice of any censorship decision at each step. These notices must contain the reasons for the decision and provide an opportunity to appeal it for review by DAC’s General Counsel. DAC has agreed to leave these policies in place for at least three years.

Second, DAC agreed to remove HRDC from any “disapproved publisher” lists and inform all its prisons that there is no longer a “blanket ban” on publications or other mail from HRDC. DAC also agreed to inform its mail processing vendor, TextBehind, that information packets and renewal notices sent by HRDC are not advertisements and must be delivered.

Third, DAC agreed to print and deliver to any subscribers remaining in DAC custody copies of the 48 back-­issues of HRDC’s publications it previously censored. Prisoner subscribers will be receiving correspondence from HRDC listing the specific back issues and other items DAC has agreed to deliver, and when they may expect delivery of those items.

Finally, DAC agreed to pay HRDC $1.2 million in damages, attorneys’ fees and costs within 45 days of the settlement agreement’s execution date. In exchange, HRDC agreed to dismiss its suit against DAC with prejudice and release DAC from all liability related to the suit.

For its part, HRDC is providing a two-­year extension to subscriptions of all North Carolina prisoner subscribers who had their subscriptions censored. “We are hopeful that the resolution of this lawsuit ensures that North Carolina prisoners can receive publications from HRDC without illegal censorship by their captors,” said Executive Director Paul Wright.

HRDC was represented by attorneys Ari S. Meltzer, Kyle Gutierrez, Scott Bouboulis, Leah Deskins and Amanda Blain of Wiley Rein LLP in Washington, D.C., and Elizabeth G. Simpson of EMANCIPATE NC in Durham, as well as in-­house litigation director Jonathan Picard. HRDC is deeply grateful to Mr. Meltzer and the Wiley Rein legal team for their tireless efforts in successfully resolving this case.

“For years, prison officials in North Carolina have censored HRDC’s communications,” Meltzer said. “This settlement will bring that practice to an end and allow HRDC to continue—without interference—its important work on behalf of incarcerated individuals in North Carolina.” See: Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. Ishee, USDC (E.D.N.C.), Case No. 5:21-­cv-­00469.

Any prisoners who do not receive back issues that DAC has agreed to deliver, or who experience other issues demonstrating DAC’s failure to abide by the terms of this settlement agreement, should contact HRDC immediately, with supporting documentation if possible.

Settlement of this case comes close on the heels of HRDC’s record-­setting settlement in another censorship suit against the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry (DCRR). As PLN reported, that agreement compelled DCRR to change its publication and mail censorship policies, also paying HRDC nearly $3 million dollars in attorneys’ fees and damages. [See: PLN, Aug. 2024, p.10.]  

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case