Shaw v. Murphy 532 U.S. 223 (2001)
While Kevin Murphy was in the Montana State Prison, he became aware that a fellow inmate had been charged with assaulting an officer. He wrote and sent a letter to the prisoner offering to assist the accused inmate with I legal defense. However, as is the norm in prison the letter was intercepted and on the basis of the content of the letter, Murphy was sanctioned by the prison for violating the prison rules that prohibit insolence and interference with the due process hearings. Following the sanctions, Murphy sought a declaratory and injunctive relief as he alleged that the disciplinary action taken against him was in violation of his First Amendment rights as well as the right to provide legal aid to other inmates. The District Court ruled against Murphy applying considering the decision in Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78, noting that imposing prison regulations on the constitutional rights of inmates is valid and reasonably connected to legitimate penological interests. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision observing that the First Amendment right of a prisoner to provide legal assistance to fellow prisoners outweighs the interests of the government.
Issue
The issue was whether prison inmates have a constitutional right to give legal assistance to other inmates.
Holding
The U.S. Supreme Court held that that prison inmates do not have a constitutional right to give legal assistance to other inmates.
Rule and Application
The Court noted that Murphy could not be afforded the protections available in the Turner case because the prisoners did not have a special constitutional right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates. The court further observed that the scope of the constitutional rights of prisoners is more limited than the rights held by other individuals within the society. The Court further observed that some constitutional rights are not consistent with the prison systems as well as the legitimate penal objectives. In particular, Justice Thomas noted that endorsing the rights of prisoners to provide legal advice would effectively undermine the ability of the prison officials to address the complexities of prison administration given that inmates are likely to take advantage and use legal correspondences to pass contraband and to communicate provocative instructions.
Conclusion
The Court reversed and remanded the Court of Appeals decision because prisoners do not have First Amendment right to offer legal assistance, which formed the protections available in the Turner case.
Work Cited
Shaw v. Murphy 532 U.S. 223 (2001)
