Preliminary Injunction Issued Against Milwaukee Jail’s Mail Policy in HRDC Suit
Like many local lockups, Wisconsin’s Milwaukee County Jail (MCJ) imposes restrictions on the number and types of books and periodicals that prisoners and detainees can receive. As of July 2024, MCJ’s mail policy required periodicals to be “mailed directly from the authorized publishers or approved vendors.” Books had to be mailed from an approved publisher, too, though there was only one on the approved list: Penguin Random House.
The Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC), publisher of PLN and Criminal Legal News, distributes dozens of books—most of which it does not publish itself—to correctional facilities nationwide, including federal and state prisons in Wisconsin. Between May 2022 and April 2024, HRDC sent books, magazines, brochures and letters to numerous people incarcerated at MCJ. In total, 58 of those mailings were rejected and returned. No notice of the censorship was provided by jail officials, nor any opportunity to appeal the rejections.
HRDC filed suit in federal court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin and moved for a preliminary injunction (PI). Raising claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the nonprofit argued that the jail’s mail policy frustrated its mission “by unconstitutionally prohibiting delivery of its publications to prisoners.” Jail officials then revised the policy to let prisoners receive periodicals and books sent “directly from the publisher” and to provide notice within 14 days to the recipient and publisher when a publication is rejected. The defendants argued that this policy change mooted HRDC’s claims, but the district court granted HRDC’s PI motion on January 27, 2025.
The district court noted that a preliminary injunction “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy” that requires weighing four factors: whether the plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of his case; whether there is no other adequate remedy at law; whether irreparable harm will result absent the injunction; and whether granting the injunction is in the public interest.
Regarding the first factor, the district court said that HRDC need only establish “that its chances of prevailing are better than negligible,” citing Brunswick Corp. v. Jones, 784 F.2d 271 (7th Cir. 1986). While “publisher only” rules like MCJ’s have been found constitutional, the district court said the jail’s revised mail policy was more restrictive because it allows detainees and prisoners to receive publications only “directly from a bona fide publisher” and not from commercial distributors such as HRDC.
HRDC argued that the jail’s “prohibition of books from commercial sources is an inappropriate attempt to expand a ‘publishers only’ rule,” the district court recalled, agreeing that the revised policy “restricting materials from all commercial sources is overbroad.” The district court also considered the factors allowing a First Amendment violation established in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), finding that there was an “obvious alternative” the jail could adopt: “to follow the Wisconsin [Department of Corrections’] regulation that allows inmates to receive publications directly from the publisher or other recognized commercial sources.”
Finding that HRDC was likely to prevail on the merits of both its First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims, the district court also found that HRDC had no adequate remedy at law and faced irreparable harm because “the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” per ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012).
Turning to the balance of harms, the district court rejected the MCJ’s arguments related to security, administrative and financial burdens, concluding that “allowing inmates to receive publications directly from the publisher or other recognized commercial sources” would not “greatly increase the burden on the jail.”
HRDC’s preliminary injunction motion was therefore granted, and MCJ was ordered to modify its mail policy to allow prisoners to receive publications not only from publishers but also from “recognized commercial sources,” which must be notified of and allowed to appeal any mail rejections. The district court further waived the bond requirement under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(c). The case remains pending, and PLN will report future developments. HRDC was represented by its Litigation Director, attorney Jonathan Picard, as well as attorneys Theresa M. Correa McMichen and Brian C. Spahn with Godfrey & Khan in Milwaukee. See: Hum. Rights Def. Ctr. v. Milwaukee Cty., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13631 (E.D. Wis.).
The month following this ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit heard an appeal in another censorship case at Arkansas’ Baxter County Jail, where a federal district court had determined that HRDC was unconstitutionally hindered in its efforts to communicate with and educate detainees at the county lockup. The appellate Court agreed that the jail’s “post-card only” policy created a “de facto ban” on the nonprofit’s publications, affirming a $259,350 award for legal fees and costs, as reported elsewhere in this issue. [See: PLN, July 2025, p.48.]
Related legal case
Hum. Rights Def. Ctr. v. Milwaukee Cty.
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13631 (E.D. Wis.) |
| Level | District Court |
| Injunction Status | Granted |