Turner v. Safley

Turner v. Safley
Turner v. Safley
	Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 13, 1987; Decided June 1, 1987
Full case name	William R. Turner, Superintendent, Missouri Department of Corrections, 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
Case history
Prior	Judgment in part for plaintiffs, 586 F. Supp. 589 (W.D. Mo. 1984); affirmed, 777 F.2d 1307 (8th Cir. 1985); cert. 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
	Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White; Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun; Lewis F. Powell Jr. · John P. Stevens; Sandra Day O'Connor · Antonin Scalia
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 Missouri prison regulations. One of the prisoners' complaints related to the fundamental right to marry. The court held that a 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.[1]

Findings of the case

This 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 Test

The case also resulted in a widely used test to determine if prison regulations that burden fundamental rights are constitutional. The Turner test attempted to balance the punitive and rehabilitative goals of corrections officials with the constitutional rights of prisoners by asking if such regulations were "reasonably related" to legitimate penological interests or were instead an "exaggerated response" to those concerns.

In order to determine if a regulation was reasonably related to a penological interest, the Supreme Court outlined a four-factor test:

Whether there is a “valid, rational connection” between the regulation and the legitimate governmental interest used to justify it;
Whether there are alternative means for the prisoner to exercise the right at issue;
The impact that the desired accommodation will have on guards, other inmates, and prison resources (so-called "ripple effects"); and
The presence or absence of “ready alternatives," where the presence of ready alternatives make it more likely that a regulation is unreasonable while the absence make it less likely that the regulation is unreasonable.

This test has been criticized by commentators as unnecessarily deferential, as over time the first "rational connection" criteria has dominated the test.[2][3]

Subsequent Developments

Turner has been cited as precedent and is now considered to be part of a fundamental right to marry. Along with cases like Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court has declared a fundamental right to marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment.[4]

gollark: ?urban apioform

gollark: > paying for programming languages

gollark: MP3 bad, though?

gollark: osmarkshypotheticalchatprotocol™ is much better.

gollark: It also probably serves as load balancing since the computers of this time were worse.

References

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
Emily Chiang, The Turner Standard: Balancing Constitutional Rights & Government Interests in Prison, 5 UCI L. Forum J. 1 (2007).
Tanya Kessler, 'Purgatory Cannot Be Worse than Hell': The First Amendment Rights of Civilly Committed Sex Offenders, 12 N.Y. City L. Rev. 283 (2009).
Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, 576 U.S. ___ (2015).

External links

Text of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

[1] Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).

[2] Emily Chiang, The Turner Standard: Balancing Constitutional Rights & Government Interests in Prison, 5 UCI L. Forum J. 1 (2007).

[3] Tanya Kessler, 'Purgatory Cannot Be Worse than Hell': The First Amendment Rights of Civilly Committed Sex Offenders, 12 N.Y. City L. Rev. 283 (2009).

[Obergefell-4] Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, 576 U.S. ___ (2015).