Turner v. Safley

Turner v. Safley

Argued January 13, 1987
Decided June 1, 1987
Full case name William R. Turner, et al. v. Leonard Safley, et al.
Citations

482 U.S. 78 (more)

107 S. Ct. 2254; 96 L. Ed. 2d 64; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2362; 55 U.S.L.W. 4719
Prior history Judgment in part for plaintiffs, 586 F. Supp. 589 (W.D. Mo. 1984); affirmed, 777 F.2d 1307 (8th Cir. 1985); certiorari granted, 476 U.S. 1139 (1986)
Holding
A Missouri prison regulation restricting inmates from marrying without permission violated their constitutional right to marry because it was not logically related to a legitimate penological concern, but a prohibition on inmate-to-inmate correspondence was justified by prison security needs and so was permissible under the First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth. Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, White, Powell, Scalia; Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens (in part III-B only)
Concur/dissent Stevens, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the constitutionality of two prison regulations. Citing the reduced liberty and greater security needs of the prison context, the Court declined to use the strict scrutiny standard of review. It upheld a regulation that allowed prison officials to prohibit inmates at one prison from corresponding with those at another in certain cases, calling it "reasonable and facially valid". It struck down another regulation that prohibited inmates from marrying without the permission of the warden, finding that it was "not...reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives" and "impermissibly burdened" their right to marry.

This decision is in line with the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the liberty element of the due process clause.

The Turner court noted many purposes of marriage, including:

expressions of emotional support and public commitment .... many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance; for some inmates and their spouses, therefore, the commitment of marriage may be an exercise of religious faith as well as an expression of personal dedication. Third, most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated. Finally, marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits (e. g., Social Security benefits), property rights (e. g., tenancy by the entirety, inheritance rights), and other, less tangible benefits (e. g., legitimation of children born out of wedlock).
—Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 96.

Turner was cited as recently as July 2014 in the case of Bostic v. Harris.[1]

See also

Further reading

References

  1. ↑ Bostic v. Harris at p. 52 (4th Cir. 2014)

External links