417 U.S. 817 (1974)
The plaintiffs were four California prison inmates and three professional journalists who sued the Director of the California Department of Corrections and subordinate officers.1 They challenged the constitutionality under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of section 415.071 of the California Department of Corrections Manual.2 That section provides that press and other media interviews with specific individual inmates will not be permitted.3 The regulation was promulgated under authority from section 5058 of the California Penal Code and applies uniformly throughout the state's penal system.4
Pell, Segal, and Jacobs requested permission to interview specific inmates Spain, Bly, and Guile.5 The editors of a periodical requested permission to visit inmate Hillery to discuss publishing his writings and to interview him concerning prison conditions.6 All these requests were denied pursuant to the regulation.7
The plaintiffs brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.8 A three-judge District Court in the Northern District of California was convened.9 The court granted summary judgment to the inmate plaintiffs, holding that the regulation infringed their constitutional rights.10 It granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the media plaintiffs' claims.11
The defendants appealed the judgment regarding the inmates, and the media plaintiffs appealed the rejection of their claims.12 The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of both appeals and consolidated the cases for argument.13
The regulation was imposed in 1971 in response to a violent episode at San Quentin State Penitentiary.14 Officials viewed the episode as the climax of mounting disciplinary problems caused in part by the prior liberal policy on press interviews.15 Under current corrections policy, both the press and the general public are accorded full opportunities to observe prison conditions.16 Newsmen are permitted to visit both maximum and minimum security sections, stop and speak to any inmates they encounter, and interview inmates selected at random by corrections officials.17 However, the regulation prohibits face-to-face interviews with individual inmates specifically designated by the press.18
Whether section 415.071 of the California Department of Corrections Manual violates the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of prison inmates?19
Lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights.20 A retraction is justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.21 In the First Amendment context a corollary of this principle is that a prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.22 Thus, challenges to prison restrictions that are asserted to inhibit First Amendment interests must be analyzed in terms of the legitimate policies and goals of the corrections system, to whose custody and care the prisoner has been committed in accordance with due process of law.23
No. The regulation clearly restricts one manner of communication between prison inmates and members of the general public beyond the prison walls by prohibiting face-to-face interviews with specific individual inmates.24 However, alternative means of communication are available to the inmates, including communication by mail and visitation by family, friends of prior acquaintance, clergy, and attorneys.25 The regulation was promulgated in response to a violent episode at San Quentin State Penitentiary. Officials viewed the episode as the climax of mounting disciplinary problems caused in part by the prior liberal policy with regard to press interviews.
In light of these alternative channels of communication that are open to prison inmates, the restriction on one manner in which prisoners can communicate with persons outside of prison is not unconstitutional so long as it operates in a neutral fashion without regard to the content of the expression.26
Section 415.071 does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the prison inmates.27
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Powell joined Part I of the opinion of the Court.28 The California cross-appeals differ from the Washington Post case in one significant respect.29 Here the constitutionality of the interview ban is challenged by prisoners as well as newsmen.30
Thus these appeals, unlike Washington Post, raise the question whether inmates as individuals have a personal constitutional right to demand interviews with willing reporters.31 Because he agreed with the majority that they do not, he joined Part I of the opinion of the Court.32
Justice Douglas dissented from the majority's conclusion regarding the inmates' claims.33 He started with the proposition that the First Amendment is foremost among the Bill of Rights of prisoners, who are still persons entitled to constitutional rights unless curtailed by due process.34 With that premise, he could not agree that California's grossly overbroad restrictions on prisoner speech are constitutionally permissible.35
Broad prophylactic rules in the area of free expression are suspect, and precision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area so closely touching our most precious freedoms.36 The State cannot justify an overly broad restriction by showing it has not eliminated expression completely.37 He would affirm the District Court's judgment that the absolute ban on media interviews is unconstitutional.38
Whether section 415.071 of the California Department of Corrections Manual violates the freedom of the press under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?39
The constitutional guarantee of a free press assures the maintenance of our political system and an open society.40 However, the First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally.41 Newsmen have no constitutional right of access to prisons or their inmates beyond that afforded the general public.42
No. The regulation is not part of an attempt by the State to conceal the conditions in its prisons.43 Under current corrections policy, both the press and the general public are accorded full opportunities to observe prison conditions, with newsmen permitted to visit both maximum and minimum security sections, stop and speak to any inmates they encounter, and interview inmates selected at random.44 The sole limitation is the prohibition of interviews with individual inmates specifically designated by representatives of the press.45 Since the regulation does not deny the press access to sources of information available to members of the general public, it does not abridge the protections that the First and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee.46
Section 415.071 does not abridge the constitutional right of a free press.47
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Powell dissented from the judgment of the Court on the press claim.48 This regulation is substantially identical to the United States Bureau of Prisons policy statement whose validity is at issue in Saxbe v. Washington Post Co.49 For the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in that case, he would hold that California's absolute ban against prisoner-press interviews impermissibly restrains the ability of the press to perform its constitutionally established function of informing the people on the conduct of their government.50
Justice Douglas dissented on the press claim as well.51 He emphasized that the interest protected by the free press guarantee is not possessed by the media themselves but by the people, the true sovereign, to govern in an informed manner.52 Prisons are ultimately the responsibility of the populace, and the public has a paramount interest in being informed about prison operations and the effectiveness of the system.53
The absolute ban on press interviews with specifically designated inmates is far broader than is necessary to protect legitimate governmental interests in discipline and order.54 It is ironic for the Court to justify the exclusion of the press by noting that the government has expanded the exclusion to the public as well.55 He would reverse the District Court's rejection of the media plaintiffs' claim because the ban infringes on the public's right to know protected by the First Amendment as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.56