Turner v. Safley
- Decided
- June 1, 1987
- Docket
- 85-1384
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,491 timesSuperseded by statute (verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute (3 of 9 verified; none is a verified overruling) · Austin v. Brown
What later courts said
- holding that “[p]rison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution” — Morrison v. Garraghty (2001)
- holding that "[p]rison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution" — Gary David Morrison, Jr. v. David A. Garraghty (2001)
- holding that a prison regulation that "impinges on inmates' constitutional rights" is nevertheless valid if that regulation "is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests" — Lockett v. Suardini (2008)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*81] Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of regulations promulgated by the Missouri Division of Corrections relating to inmate marriages and inma.te-to-inma.te correspondence. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, applying a strict scrutiny analysis, concluded that the regulations violate respondents’ constitutional rights. We hold that a lesser standard of scrutiny is appropriate in determining the constitutionality of the prison rules. Applying that standard, we uphold the validity of the correspondence regulation, but we conclude that the marriage restriction cannot be sustained.
H
Cite this
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.