## Facts

- The Federal Bureau of Prisons adopted Policy Statement 1220.1A § 4b(6), barring personal interviews between reporters and individually designated federal inmates.
- The Bureau later allowed some press interviews in certain minimum-security institutions, but the prohibition continued in most medium- and maximum-security facilities, including Lewisburg (Pennsylvania) and Danbury (Connecticut).
- In March 1972, a newspaper and a reporter sought permission to interview specific inmates at Lewisburg and Danbury; prison officials denied the requests under the policy.
- The Bureau’s visitation rules permitted access for inmates’ attorneys, clergy, relatives, and (to a more limited extent) friends; other members of the public could not enter to interview consenting inmates absent such a relationship.
- Reporters could enter only on the same basis as other visitors (e.g., to visit friends or family), but could not demand access to inmates with whom they lacked a qualifying relationship.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal prison policy prohibiting reporters from conducting face-to-face interviews with individually designated inmates in medium- and maximum-security prisons violates the First Amendment by restricting newsgathering access.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and held the policy constitutional.
- The Court concluded the policy did not deny the press access to information sources available to the general public, but instead applied the general rule that no one may enter to visit a chosen inmate absent an approved relationship (e.g., attorney, clergy, relative, friend).
- The Court rejected a claim that the press has a special First Amendment right of physical access to prisons or inmates beyond that afforded to the public.
- The Court treated the case as controlled by a companion decision upholding materially similar restrictions and deferred to prison administrators’ security and orderly-administration judgments.
- Dissents argued that the ban impaired effective reporting on prison conditions and undermined public discussion of government operations.

## Legal Principles

- The First Amendment does not grant the press a privileged right of in-person access to prisons or specific inmates beyond access available to the general public.
- A content-neutral visitation policy that treats reporters like other members of the public and restricts entry to those with specified ties to an inmate may be upheld even if it limits face-to-face newsgathering.
- Courts may give substantial weight to prison officials’ judgments about security and institutional administration when evaluating access restrictions.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld a federal rule barring reporters from interviewing individually designated inmates in most higher-security federal prisons, reasoning that the First Amendment does not entitle the press to greater physical access to inmates than the public generally receives under neutral visitation policies.


Saxbe v. Wash. Post Co., 417 U.S. 843 (1974)