19. Free speech, expression, assoc.

U.S. Appeals Court VISITS FAMILY FORMER PRISONERS

Bazzetta v. McGinnis, 286 F.3d 311 (6th Cir. 2002). [Reversed by U.S. Supreme Court on June 16, 2003, in a unanimous decision.] A class of state prisoners and their prospective visitors brought a [section] 1983 action against a state corrections department, alleging that restrictions on prison visitation violated their First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that prisoners have no freedom of association rights to contact visits, but that a close analysis of prison regulations is especially appropriate when the challenged restrictions interfere with family relationships, including the parent-child bond. The court held that a prison regulation that prohibited non-contact visits from inmates' minor siblings, nieces, and nephews, violated the First Amendment. The court also found a violation in the regulation that prohibited non-contact visits from an inmate's natural child if the parental rights of the inmate to the child had been terminated. Similar violations were found by the court for regulations that banned visits from a former prisoner, probationer or a parolee (other than a prisoner's immediate family), required children to be accompanied by an immediate family member or legal guardian, and a permanent ban on all visitation (other than attorney or clergy) for prisoners with two or more major misconduct charges for substance abuse. (Michigan Department of Corrections)

U.S. District Court HAIR

Gartrell v. Ashcroft, 191 F.Supp.2d 23 (D.D.C. 2002). Rastafarian and Muslim inmates, on behalf of a c]ass of inmates whose avowed religious beliefs forbid them from cutting their hair or shaving their beards, sued District of Columbia and federal prison officials. The inmates challenged the policy of housing inmates from the District of Columbia in facilities operated by the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC), which had a policy that prohibited long hair and beards. The district court ruled in favor of the inmates, finding that each individual decision to place or keep an inmate in a VDOC facility was subject to scrutiny under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA). The court held that the inmates' sincerely held religious beliefs were substantially burdened by the VDOC policy and that the Federal Bureau of Prisons failed to demonstrate that housing the...