HRDC Sues Minnesota DOC Over Censorship Policy
by Robert Haughn
On January 7, 2025, the Human Right Defense Center (HRDC), nonprofit publisher of PLN and Criminal Legal News, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, accusing Commissioner Paul Schnell of the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC), Deputy Commissioner Safia Khan, and the wardens of three Minnesota correctional facilities of violating the First and Fourteenth Amendment with bans, returns, and policy changes affecting the publisher’s delivery of books and magazines to Minnesota facilities.
The DOC’s public policy on book mailing claims that prisoners may only receive books from “approved vendors and nonprofit organizations.” The agency also issued a memorandum on March 20, 2025 to all prisoners in DOC facilities that they may only access books from approved vendors, approved nonprofits, or through the DOC library. All other materials would be returned or disposed of, according to the DOC. Their approved list consists of two catalog companies, four publishers, and five nonprofit organizations. HRDC is not included on the DOC’s approved list.
Between May and November 2025, HRDC attempted to send books, magazines, informational brochures, and correspondence to individuals confined at the DOC facilities. The DOC returned 53 of these items, with 27 returns from Minnesota Correctional Facility (MCF) Shakopee, 25 from MCF Moose Lake, and one from MCF Saint Cloud. These returns were made up of books, magazines and pamphlets that HRDC either publishes or solely distributes, including 23 copies of Protecting Your Health and Safety, 14 copies of Prisoner’s Handbook, 14 copies of Habeas Citebook and two copies of Prison Education Guide. Most of these returns were marked “RETURN TO SENDER NOT ALLOWED,” “RTS,” or, tellingly, “Unauthorized Vendor.” HRDC also claims that the DOC censored up to 59 additional books that were mailed to prisoners that were never sent back by the DOC.
HRDC claims that the DOC did not solicit any proposals from vendors or nonprofits to attain approval status for their facilities, nor have they publicly disclosed the process in which they selected the approved vendors list. The DOC also has not provided any guide or mechanism by which to attain approval status. As a result, HRDC believes they and other vendors were not given an opportunity by the DOC to obtain approval status.
HRDC claims the DOC’s policy violates their First Amendment rights by banning their books, as they contain material of protected speech including social commentary. HRDC also claims their right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment was violated due to the DOC’s failure to give HRDC notice or opportunity to appeal regarding their censorship decisions. HRDC’s suit against the DOC and the facilities that returned their books seeks injunctive relief to deliver their materials to prisoners in those facilities, as well as other appropriate declaratory relief, such as legal costs and attorney fees.
The case remains pending, and PLN will continue to report developments. HRDC is represented by attorneys Alex P. Hontos, Matthew Gillespie, and Anna Ashley in Minneapolis, along with in-house Litigation Director Jonathan P. Picard. See: Human Rt.s Def. Ctr v. Schnell et al, USDC (D. Minn.), Case No. 0:26-cv-00073.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Human Rt.s Def. Ctr v. Schnell et al
| Year | 2026 |
|---|---|
| Cite | USDC (D. Minn.), Case No. 0:26-cv-00073 |
| Level | District Court |