## Facts

- California prison officials adopted a regulation prohibiting press and other media from conducting face-to-face interviews with specific, named inmates.
- The regulation followed an earlier practice permitting such interviews, which officials concluded had given a small group of inmates disproportionate notoriety and influence and contributed to security problems after a violent prison incident.
- The rule did not bar all contact between inmates and the press; journalists could still enter prisons and conduct interviews with inmates selected at random in designated areas.
- Inmates retained other communication channels, including correspondence by mail and communications through permitted visitors.
- Three journalists and four inmates challenged the regulation, claiming it violated inmates’ First and Fourteenth Amendment speech rights and journalists’ First and Fourteenth Amendment press and newsgathering rights.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the inmates (invalidating the ban as applied to inmate speech) and dismissed the journalists’ claims; prison officials and journalists each sought Supreme Court review in consolidated appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether a prison regulation barring face-to-face press interviews with specific, named inmates violates inmates’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
2. Whether the same regulation violates journalists’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by restricting face-to-face access to particular inmates.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the ruling for the inmates and affirmed dismissal of the journalists’ claims.
- The Court held the regulation did not violate inmates’ speech rights because inmates had alternative channels to communicate with the press and the restriction was justified by legitimate prison security and administrative concerns.
- The Court held the regulation did not violate the press’s First Amendment rights because the press has no constitutional entitlement to access information or persons inside prisons beyond what is available to the general public.
- The Court emphasized judicial deference to prison administrators’ professional judgment on internal security and order.

## Legal Principles

- Prisoners retain First Amendment rights only to the extent those rights are consistent with prisoner status and legitimate penological objectives, including institutional security.
- Limits on a particular mode of inmate communication may be upheld when alternative channels remain available and the restriction is rationally related to security and administrative needs.
- The First Amendment does not grant the press a constitutional right of special access to nonpublic government institutions or to information not available to the public generally.
- A regulation that places the press on the same footing as the public, without content-based limits on publication, generally does not violate the Free Press Clause.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld California’s ban on face-to-face interviews with specific inmates, reasoning that prison security and administration justified restricting that interview format while leaving other communication channels open, and that the First Amendment does not confer on the press a special right to access prisons or particular prisoners beyond public access.


Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974)