Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prison Policy Book Ban topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeals court hears argument in Daley challenge over prison ban on book
Summary
The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard oral argument in Jeff Daley’s appeal of the Department of Correction’s decision to ban a book, focusing on whether the suit should be reviewed as part of the prison’s administrative record or as an independent constitutional challenge and on deference to prison officials.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard oral argument Tuesday in the appeal by Jeff Daley challenging the Department of Correction’s decision to bar a book from his possession, with counsel for the DOC urging deference to prison administrators and the panel probing whether the dispute should be confined to the administrative record.
Jeff Daley, the appellant, told the panel he received notice of the Zoom hearing “2 hours ago today” and said he would “rest on the briefs” filed on his behalf. The court set 15 minutes per side and noted there is no rebuttal in the appeals court.
Max Bauer, counsel for the Department of Correction, framed the dispute around two themes: the contextual limits on prisoners’ rights inside institutions and the deference owed to prison officials in maintaining internal security. "Restrictions on particular content in the prison would raise major First Amendment concerns in other contexts," Bauer told the court, but he urged the panel to consult Thornburgh and related prison-regulation precedent to govern the matter.
The justices focused much of their questioning on the procedural posture of Daley’s case. Bauer argued the grievance process and the path Daley took through the prison administrative system brought parts of the dispute within the scope of judicial review of administrative proceedings and Standing Order 196. He said the superior court treated aspects of the case as a motion for judgment on the pleadings and that portions of the record were administrative in nature, which can limit what the superior court may consider on review absent additional 30A evidence.
A justice summarized Daley’s allegations as asserting that the DOC permits “anti-white” programming and materials while denying him an "anti-racist" book because of its provocative cover and photos. Bauer acknowledged that a policy that allowed only one viewpoint would present an “easy constitutional case,” but he repeated that—within the prison context—courts apply the Turner framework and give weight to prison officials’ judgments about safety and administration.
The panel also discussed a line of authorities and rules referenced by counsel, including Thornburgh and Rashid, the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) exhaustion requirement, Triplet v. Reedy (cited by the court), and Ross v. Blake. The justices pressed whether Daley’s nine-count complaint—largely seeking declaratory relief that the ban was arbitrary, capricious, violative of the constitution and the Massachusetts declaration of rights, and that the DOC must replace the copy—should be funneled through administrative-review procedures or could be treated on the merits in superior court.
Bauer told the court Daley had avenues to introduce more material into the administrative record and to seek additional evidence under the 30A provisions in superior-court review; he said the PRLA and related authorities require exhaustion of administrative remedies for incarcerated plaintiffs in many circumstances.
With no further questions from the panel, the court declared the matter submitted on the briefs. The panel thanked counsel and closed the session; no ruling was issued from the bench at the hearing.
The appeals court’s next step is to consider the written record, the parties’ briefs, and the arguments raised at oral argument and issue a decision at a later date.
