ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT