The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Baxter County’s jail mail policy violated the First Amendment rights of a prison rights organization, upholding both the constitutional finding and a substantial attorney fee award in a case that has wound through the courts for nearly eight years.

In a decision filed February 24, 2025, the three-judge panel determined that the county’s “postcard-only” mail policy created an unconstitutional ban on publications from the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC), ending a legal battle that began in 2017.

The Latest Ruling

The appeals court’s 11-page opinion written by Circuit Judge Jonathan Grasz concluded that Baxter County’s blanket ban on HRDC’s publications violated the publisher’s First Amendment rights, noting the jail “failed to show more than a de minimis cost if such publications were permitted at the facility.”

“Under these facts, with an onerous burden on the free speech right and little burden on the Jail to provide the requested accommodation, the district court did not err in concluding the Jail’s policy is not reasonably related to its legitimate objectives,” the court stated.

The ruling emphasized that while prison officials need discretion to maintain security, they must still provide a rational basis for their policies—”a low bar,” the court noted, “but one that Baxter County fails to clear.”

The court affirmed not only the constitutional violation but also upheld a $259,350 attorney fee award to HRDC, rejecting Baxter County’s claims that the award was inappropriate because HRDC received only nominal damages. The panel noted HRDC also secured a permanent injunction, which represented “not technical or partial but a full vindication of its central claim.”

Case Origins and History

The case began when the jail, located in Mountain Home, implemented a “postcard-only” mail policy in January 2012, restricting all non-legal mail to postcard size. The policy was ostensibly instituted to enhance security by reducing potential contraband and to save costs on postage for indigent inmates.

Starting in 2016, HRDC attempted to send various publications to inmates at the Baxter County Detention Center, including its monthly magazine “Prison Legal News,” a book called “The Habeas Citebook,” and other informational materials. These items were rejected and returned marked “Refused” or “Return to Sender Post Cards Only.”

HRDC filed suit in August 2017, alleging violations of its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The case’s procedural journey has been complex. In 2019, the district court dismissed HRDC’s First Amendment claim after a bench trial while finding a “technical” violation of due process rights. HRDC appealed, and in June 2021, the 8th Circuit vacated the First Amendment ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In that 2021 opinion, issued as a per curiam decision (representing the collective view of the court rather than a single judge), the 8th Circuit questioned whether the postcard-only policy created “a de facto permanent ban” on HRDC’s materials. The opinion stated, “As written, the postcard-only policy looks like a total ban – it instructs Jail staff not to deliver books and magazines to inmates.”

After an evidentiary hearing in September 2022, the district court issued a comprehensive 44-page opinion on March 31, 2023, finding the policy unconstitutional and imposing a permanent injunction against Baxter County.

Arbitrary Implementation

A key finding in both the district and appeals court opinions was the arbitrary manner in which the jail implemented its mail policy.

Lieutenant Sebastian Dennis, the acting jail administrator, testified that the sheriff and jail management exercised “subjective personal discretion” about what mail inmates could receive, with rules changing “on a whim” from day to day depending on the sheriff’s judgment.

The district court found that while jail officials claimed to prohibit all publications except legal mail and bibles, in practice they allowed some materials but not others without a rational basis. The jail permitted bibles sent to individual inmates through the mail but refused all other publications sent in the same manner.

The courts noted a contradictory practice where the jail claimed publications were security risks while simultaneously allowing inmates to keep “an enormous amount of paper” in their cells, including bibles, “unlimited paper,” and books from the jail commissary or book cart.

Sheriff Montgomery’s testimony further undermined the county’s case. The district court found his testimony lacked credibility when he claimed during the 2022 evidentiary hearing that HRDC could donate materials to the jail—a claim that contradicted his earlier testimony where he acknowledged no publisher could send books into the jail and no magazines were allowed.

Contraband Concerns Dismissed

The appeals court affirmed the district court’s finding that the jail’s security concerns were largely unfounded. Court documents revealed jail staff conducted only cursory examinations of publications, “shaking them around and flipping some pages.” One employee testified he didn’t screen the local newspaper before distributing it to inmates, undermining the jail’s claims about contraband concerns.

The district court noted there was “no reason to believe that a publication sent by mail will impact security and efficiency differently than the same publication provided by another mechanism, such as the book cart or commissary.”

Moreover, the court found that no publisher besides HRDC had ever sought to send publications to the jail, further weakening the county’s claim that accepting such materials would significantly impact jail operations.

Constitutional Analysis

The courts applied the four-factor test established in the Supreme Court case Turner v. Safley, which evaluates whether prison regulations impinging on constitutional rights are “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”

While acknowledging the jail’s security and efficiency interests as legitimate, both courts concluded the policy failed the other three Turner factors: alternative means available to exercise the right, impact of accommodating the right, and existence of ready alternatives to the regulation.

The 8th Circuit found that HRDC had no viable alternative means to communicate its publications to inmates. Unlike in other cases where personal visitors could use phone calls or visits as alternatives to written communication, HRDC as a distant publisher had no practical way to deliver its content to inmates.

The “law library” at the jail consisted merely of “six books held in a milk crate,” some with missing pages. The jail’s book cart was limited to what officials deemed “uplifting fiction,” which did not include HRDC’s legal publications.

Broader Implications

The 8th Circuit emphasized that its ruling does not mean all postcard-only mail policies are unconstitutional. Rather, it highlighted the fact-intensive nature of these cases, explaining that “different jails with different facts can result in different outcomes.”

The court distinguished this case from prior decisions where similar policies were upheld, noting that in those instances inmates had alternative means to access publications, such as electronic tablets or kiosks, which were not available at the Baxter County jail.

The ruling could have significant implications for detention facilities throughout the 8th Circuit, potentially requiring them to modify mail policies to accommodate publications from third-party publishers, even if they maintain postcard-only restrictions for personal correspondence.

HRDC’s attorney Caesar Kalinowski, who helped represent the organization, explained the impact of the original restriction.

“Effectively restricting anything that anyone could say to anyone in the jail down to what could fit on a postcard. For a book, magazine and newsletter publisher, you can imagine that such a policy just doesn’t work,” Kalinowski said.

Paul Wright, Executive Director of the Human Rights Defense Center, celebrated the ruling as a significant victory for press freedom and prisoners’ rights.

“The constitutional free speech rights of the news media have been vindicated and now prisoners can read publications in the jail,” Wright said. “This ruling affirms that publishers have a right to communicate with incarcerated individuals and that correctional facilities cannot impose arbitrary restrictions that effectively create a total ban on educational and legal materials.”