Eighth Circuit Affirms Judgment for HRDC in Arkansas Jail Censorship Suit
On February 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed judgment that the “postcard-only” policy for periodicals and books at Arkansas’ Baxter County Jail and Detention Center constituted a de facto blanket ban on publications in violation of the First Amendment rights of the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC), publisher of PLN and Criminal Legal News. The Court further affirmed an award of $259,350 in attorney fees and costs to HRDC.
HRDC sued Baxter County in 2017 to enjoin the jail’s policy prohibiting all detainee mail except for legal mail and postcards. After a three-day trial in April 2019, the federal court for the Western District of Arkansas found the policy was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and did not violate HRDC’s First Amendment rights. HRDC appealed.
The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the case, citing the second of four factors that must be considered when balancing prison and jail censorship with the First Amendment rights of those incarcerated and those who would communicate with them. As outlined in Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), courts must consider whether a restriction has a valid, rational connection to a legitimate penological purpose, whether there are alternative means for the incarcerated to exercise their rights, whether accommodating them would have negative “ripple effects” and whether there are any “ready alternatives” to the censored material. The district court was ordered to more broadly assess whether HRDC proved its assertion that the postcard-only policy resulted in a ‘de facto total ban’ on the ability of Jail detainees to access HRDC’s materials. See: Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. Baxter Cty. Ark., 999 F.3d 1160 (8th Cir. 2021); and 2021 U.S. App. Lexis 20866 (8th Cir.).
As PLN reported, the district court held an evidentiary hearing on remand and found the postcard-only policy created a de facto ban on any HRDC publication; it also found that permitting HRDC to directly send its publications to detainees would have a de minimus impact on Jail operations. The court concluded that the policy was therefore not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. HRDC was awarded $1 in nominal damages, plus a permanent injunction of the postcard-only policy as applied to publications mailed directly from publishers, along with $259,350 in attorney fees and costs. Baxter County appealed.
The Eighth Circuit agreed with Baxter County that the postcard-only policy was legitimately related to its penological interest to reduce contraband and the time it takes to screen mail. However, the Court rejected the County’s argument that it was error to determine that a publisher could not donate its materials to the Jail.
In support of that argument, Baxter County primarily relied on testimony at the post-remand evidentiary hearing, when Sheriff John Montgomery said that HRDC could donate its materials to the Jail. The district court found that lacked creditability because at the 2019 bench trial, the sheriff testified that no publisher could send books into the Jail and that no magazines were allowed, either—though publishers were free to cut and paste their content onto postcards, he helpfully pointed out.
The Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court’s conclusion that the Jail’s policy created a de facto ban on HRDC’s publications. “Publications like books and magazines cannot practically be communicated through postcards, phone calls, or in-person visits from HRDC,” the appellate Court wrote, “so these are not available alternatives.”
Jail officials testified that the inspection of publications consisted of shaking them around or flipping a few pages. One official testified to not even screening a local newspaper. Therefore allowing publishers such as HRDC to directly send publications to detainees at the Jail while continuing postcards for nonlegal mail from other individuals would have a de minimus impact on Jail operations, the Court concluded.
Its holding, the Eighth Circuit noted, turned on the facts of the case. As it has held in two other cases, a different result may have occurred if “HRDC had an alternative means of communication (such as kiosks or tablets) or its proposed accommodation would impose more than a de minimus cost on the Jail.” Finally, the Court found no error or abuse of discretion in the award of attorney fees and costs to HRDC.
HRDC was represented by Litigation Director Jonathan Picard, along with attorneys Paul J. James of James & Carter PLC in Little Rock, as well as Davis & Wright attorneys Cesar Kalinowski in Seattle and Theodore R. Snyder in New York City. Amicus briefs were filed by the Clark-Fox Family Foundation; The Marshall Project; Prison Journalism Project; Arch City Defenders; Missourians to Abolish the Death Penalty; Mark Sableman and Anthony F. Blum of St. Louis. See: Hum. Rights Def. Ctr. v. Baxter Cty., 129 F.4th 498 (8th Cir. 2025).
Requests for rehearing and for rehearing before the full Eighth Circuit en banc were denied on April 17, 2025. See: Hum. Rights Def. Ctr. v. Baxter Cty., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9231 (8th Cir.).
In a similar suit over censorship of materials detainees may receive at the Milwaukee County Jail, HRDC won an injunction against a policy that required publications to be “sent directly from the publisher.” That January 2025 ruling is reported elsewhere in this issue. [See: PLN, July 2025, p.41.]
Related legal case
Hum. Rights Def. Ctr. v. Baxter Cty.
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 9231 (8th Cir.) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |