explaining “[c]ommunication by letter is not accomplished by the act of writing words on paper” but “is effected only when the letter is read by the addressee[,]” meaning that “[b]oth parties to the correspondence have an interest in securing that result, and censorship of the communication between them necessarily impinges on the interest of each”
How later courts described this case
- explaining “[c]ommunication by letter is not accomplished by the act of writing words on paper” but “is effected only when the letter is read by the addressee[,]” meaning that “[b]oth parties to the correspondence have an interest in securing that result, and censorship of the communication between them necessarily impinges on the interest of each”
- stating that “the regulation or practice in question must further an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expres sion” and that "the limitation of First Amendment freedoms must be no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved”
- stating that, although courts must show deference in dealing with problems of prison administration, "a policy of judicial restraint cannot encompass any failure to take cognizance of valid *1056 constitutional claims whether arising in a federal or state institution”
- finding that the constitutional guarantee of due process of law has as a corollary the requirement that prisoners be afforded access to the courts in order to challenge unlawful convictions and to seek redress for violations of their constitutional rights
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 (1989)
Listed in the Constitution Annotated's table of Supreme Court decisions overruled by subsequent decision (entry 192, expressly overruled).
Supreme Court of the United StatesMay 15, 1989370 citing opinionsother groundsofficial confidenceRead itOverruled by Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986)
Further, Birdo cited Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974), overruled by Thornburgh v. Abbott, 477 U.S. 401 (1989), another case involving a prisoner's exercise of his First Amendment free speech rights.
Overruled on other grounds by United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989)
416 U.S. 396, 413 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 3 401, 413-14
Overruled — as noted by a later court
To the extent that Martinez itself suggests such a distinction, we today overrule that case....
in partmedium confidenceOverruled by Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)
Turner overruled Martinez
Disagreed with in part by In re Rules Adoption Regarding Inmate Mail to Attorneys, Public Officials, & News Media Representative, 120 N.J. 137 (1990)
To the extent that Martinez itself suggests a distinction [between incoming correspondence from prisoners and incoming correspondence from non-prisoners] we today overrule that case; the Court accomplished most of this step when it decided Turner.
and 1 more.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Prison Legal News v. Livingston, 683 F.3d 201 (2012)
Martinez itself is readily distinguishable.
Distinguished by Lucas v. Scully, 71 N.Y.2d 399 (1988)
We reject petitioner’s urging that the heightened standard articulated in Procunier v Martinez (416 US 396) is applicable here.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Douglas,
concurring in the judgment.
I have joined Part II of Mr. Justice Marshall’s opinion because I think it makes abundantly clear that foremost among the Bill of Rights of prisoners in this country, whether under state or federal detention, is the First Amendment. Prisoners are still “persons” entitled to all constitutional rights unless their liberty has been constitutionally curtailed by procedures that satisfy all of the requirements of due process.
While Mr. Chief Justice Hughes in Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 , stated that the First Amendment was applicable to the States by reason of .the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it has become customary, to *429 rest on the broader foundation of the entire Fourteenth Amendment. Free speech and préss within the meaning of the.First Amendment are, in my judgment, among the pre-eminent privileges and immunities of all citizens.