- Beard v. Banks
Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants=Beard v. Banks
ArgueDate=March 27
ArgueYear=2006
DecideDate=June 28
DecideYear=2006
FullName=Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Ronald Banks, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
Docket=04-1739
USVol=548
USPage=521
Citation=
Prior=Respondent's motion for summary judgment granted in the District Court, Third Circuit reversed, 399 F. 3d 134 (2005); cert. granted, 546 U. S. ___ (2005)
Subsequent=
Holding=Prison officials had adequate legal support for their policy of withholding reading material from incorrigible inmates.
SCOTUS=1994-2005
Majority=Breyer
JoinMajority=Roberts, Kennedy, and Souter
Concurrence=Thomas
JoinConcurrence=Scalia
Dissent=Stevens
JoinDissent=Ginsburg
Dissent2=Ginsburg
NotParticipating=Alito
LawsApplied=Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983; U.S. Const. amend. I"Beard v. Banks", 548 U.S. 521 (2006), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in which the petitioner, Ronald Banks, challenged the
constitutionality of thePennsylvania Department of Corrections policy of denying access to written material such asnewspaper s andmagazine s, to violent ("Level 2") inmates, on the grounds that the policy was a violation of his basic First Amendment rights, includingfreedom of speech .cite web
year=
month=
url=http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certGrants/2005/beavban
title=Beard v. Banks
publisher=Duke University Law School
accessdate=2007-10-28 ] cite web
year=
month=
url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1739.ZS.html
title=Beard v. Banks (docket #: 04-1739) (2006)
publisher=Cornell University School of Law
accessdate=2007-10-28 ]History
The Supreme Court previously had directed
Federal Court s to defer to prison officials as experts in prison administration and security in "Turner v. Safley " and set forth criteria to met in order to balance the needs of the prison with an inmate' constitutional rights.cite web
year=2006
month=
url=http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/120/nov06/leadingcases/beard_v_banks.pdf
title=Supreme Court Leading Cases
publisher=
accessdate=2007-10-29 ]Facts of case
The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections maintains a Long Term Segregation Unit (LTSU) to segregate a small number of its most violent and unmanageable inmates, those that are the most incorrigible and who continue to commit criminal acts within the prison.cite web
url=http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003202.php
title=Beard, Jeffrey (PA Dept. of Corrections) v. Banks, Ronald
publisher=Northwestern University
accessdate=2007-10-29] Level 2, the most restricted level in LTSU, does not allow inmates access to non-religious written material that is normally available, such as newspapers or photographs. Inmates begin at Level 2, which has the most severe restrictions and deprivation, but may graduate to the less restrictive level 1 where such material is allowed, based on maintenance of good behavior for rehabilitation.Ronald Banks, the plaintiff, was serving a
life sentence in a Pennsylvania prison and was kept in the LTSU Level 2 unit from its inception in 2000 to 2005. He was placed there originally because he was so violent that prison officials determined that he had to be segregated within the prison. In Level 2, he spent 23 hours a day insolitary confinement . Banks filed suit inUnited States district court , alleging that this policy violated his First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech.cite web
year=
month=
url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1739.ZS.html
title=Supreme Court of the United States - Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Banks
publisher=
accessdate=2007-10-28 ] The defendant, Jeffrey Beard, served as Secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.Legal course
The Deputy Superintendent of Corrections testified in a deposition that the Department of Corrections policy was aimed at
behavior modification by using written material as an incentive to encourage good behavior.cite web
url=http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2005/3mer/1ami/2004-1739.mer.ami.html
title=Brief for the United States supporting the Petitioner
publisher=United States Department of Justice
accessdate=2007-10-29] The prison official testified that inmates in Level 2 confinement were deprived of privileges aspunishment with the incentive that if their behavior improved they would be moved to Level 1 with its added privileges. Such rules also allegedly served prisonsecurity , as the prison official described how tightly rollednewspaper s could be as effective aweapon as clubs and paper can be used to startfire s.cite web
year=2006
month=March 6
url=http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=16696
title= Prisoners' side struggles in reading-material case
publisher=firstamendmentcenter.org
accessdate=2007-10-29 ]Along with the documents, Secretary Beard filed a motion for
summary judgment based on the undisputed facts, including those in the deposition. Although federal court rules gave Banks a chance to refute facts and contest these materials, he did not take this opportunity. Rather, he filed a separate motion for summary judgment, arguing that the policy had no rational basis. He argued that religious material could be used for dangerous purposes as easily as secular material. He also argued that the level of deprivation of Level 2 inmates was so great that it violated the Eighth Amendment.The District Court ruled that neither the cases Banks cited nor the statistics he produced supported his argument and therefore granted Beard's motion, based on the facts provided, and denied Banks' motion. It ruled that the LTSU policies were rationally related to prison interests, furthering prison security and providing rehabilitation.
Banks appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed Beard's summary judgment, holding that the prison rules and regulations could not be supported by law.cite web
year=2005
month=February 25
url=http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:BpvNHsHLA34J:caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/031245p.pdf+Beard+v.+Banks&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=26&gl=us
title=Decision - U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit
publisher=
accessdate=2007-10-29 ]Issues
The points at issue in this case were whether the LTSU prison policy violates the First Amendment rights of Level 2 inmates and whether judges should allow prison officials to determine policies that are less related to security than to beliefs about behavioral management techniques and that rely on deprivation to deter misbehavior and the increased privileges in Level 1 to inspire improved behavior.cite web
year=
month=
url=http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/24190res20060316041739/24190res20060316.html
title=Beard v. Banks, 04-1739 - Prisoners' rights
publisher=ACLU
accessdate=2007-10-28 ]Decision
By a vote of six to two, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and upheld the Pennsylvania prison regulations banning all reading matter, except religious or legal material, from its most unmanageable inmates as legal. The decision was based in part on Bank's failure to challenge the facts as set forth by Beard.In this case, the Court held that the four-part test outlined in
Turner v. Safley was met. [cite web
url=http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_1739/
title=Beard v. Banks
publisher=oyez.org
accessdate=2007-10-29]
#The policy was rationally related to the legitimate prison goal of motivating manageable behavior.
#Although inmates did not have another way of exercising their rights, they could graduate to the more privileged Level 1.
#Allowing inmates these rights could result in worse behavior and issues of prison security.
#There was no alternative way to accomplish the same goals without restricting inmate rights.ignificance
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
