7th Circuit split in prisoner media-ban issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals was split in its en banc decision today to uphold the Federal Bureau of Prisons' authority to deny face-to-face interviews between inmates and the media. The majority, which affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, believed the rule was legitimate to protect security interests; the dissent worried the ruling violated prisoners' First Amendment rights.

In David Paul Hammer v. John D. Ashcroft, et al., No. 06-1750, David Paul Hammer filed suit against then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and other public officials who drafted a policy that banned inmates of the Special Confinement Unit in Terre Haute from speaking to the media in person. The ban was put into effect after public outrage about a CBS broadcast in 2000 of an interview with Timothy McVeigh, who was sentenced to death for killing 168 people by bombing the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Prior to that ban in 2000, Hammer had spoken face-to-face with media.

Ashcroft announced the change in policy saying he wanted to restrict a mass murderer's access to the public as "an American who cares about our culture," and he was concerned about irresponsible glamorization of a culture of violence.

Last year, a 7th Circuit panel originally reversed the ruling by then-District Judge John Tinder, which was vacated by granting the rehearing en banc.

Judges Richard Posner, Michael Kanne, Terence Evans, Diane Sykes, and Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook, who wrote for the majority, believed the policy was constitutional based in Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 843 (1974), and Pell v. Procunier 417 U.S. 817 (1974). Those rulings establish the BOP could enforce a system-wide rule against personal or video interviews between prisoners and reporters. The rule at issue, THA 1480.05A, is reasonably related to legitimate security interests, wrote Chief Judge Easterbrook. Prisons don't want inmates to become famous and celebrities through the interviews, which could raise tensions within prison.

The majority also found the blanket ban of face-to-face media interviews of prisoners on death row is neutral, and it doesn't see why Ashcroft and others should have to testify as to what they were thinking when they instituted the rule. The majority also believed Hammer could communicate with the media in an uncensored format about prisoners and conditions through writing.

Judges Ilana Rover, William Bauer, and Diane Wood dissented, worrying the majority's holding goes too far and will allow the government to suppress speech they find offensive, which is not a legitimate penological interest, wrote Judge Rovner in her dissent in which Judge Bauer joined. Judge Wood wrote her own dissent but agreed with the points made by Judge Rovner.

There is a question of fact that was overlooked by the District Court: Is the jailhouse-celebrity concern a legitimate one or is it "simply a convenient way to justify a policy designed to control speech content of a particular subset of prisoners," questioned Judge Rovner.

"It is unclear why speaking in-person with a journalist would give an unknown death-row inmate more influence over other prisoners than would, for example, allowing Martha Stewart or George Ryan to give face-to-face interviews during their incarceration, which they would have been or are free to do under the Bureau's policies," she wrote.

The dissenting judges also wrote that Hammer was denied the opportunity to create a full record at the summary-judgment stage because the government moved for summary judgment before the close of discovery and objected to Hammer's requests for discovery.

Judges Joel Flaum, Ann Claire Williams, and Tinder didn't participate in the consideration or decision of the appeal.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?