# Pell v. Procunier > Supreme Court of the United States · June 24, 1974 · 417 U.S. 817 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425784 ## Case - **Full name:** PELL Et Al. v. PROCUNIER, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, Et Al. - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 24, 1974 - **Citations:** 417 U.S. 817; 71 Ohio Op. 2d 195; 1 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2379; 94 S. Ct. 2800; 41 L. Ed. 2d 495; 1974 U.S. LEXIS 82 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Powell - **Judges:** Stewart, Burger, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Powell, Douglas, Brennan, Marshall - **Cited by:** 2,319 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425784 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that in light of “the alternative channels of 20 communication that are open to prison inmates, a restriction on one manner in which 21 prisoners can communicate with persons outside of prison was not unconstitutional as long 22 as the restriction operates in a neutral… - explaining that “challenges to prison restrictions that are asserted to inhibit First Amendment interests must be analyzed in terms of the legitimate policies and goals of the corrections system, to whose custody and care the prisoner has been committed in accordance with due … - stating the premise of general deterrence is that “by confining criminal offenders in a facility where they are isolated from the rest of society, a condition that most people 86 presumably find undesirable, they and others will be deterred from committing additional criminal … - holding inmates’ First Amendment rights, including the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, was not violated by a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction “in light of the alternative channels of communication that are open to prison inmates” - finding, under an earlier standard, that “security considerations are sufficiently paramount in the administration of the prison to justify the imposition of some restrictions on the entry of outsiders into the prison for face-to-face contact with inmates” ## Opinion text Mr. Justice Powell, concurring in part and dissenting in part. These cross-appeals concern the constitutionality, under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, of a regulation of the California Department of Corrections that prohibits all personal interviews of prison inmates by representatives of the news media. This regulation is substantially identical to the United States Bureau of Prisons policy statement whose validity is at issue in Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., post, p. 843. For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in that case, post, p. 850, I would hold that California’s absolute ban against prisoner-press interviews impermissibly restrains the ability of the press to perform its constitutionally established function of informing the people on the conduct of their government. Accordingly, I dissent from the judgment of the Court. The California cross-appeals differ from the Washington Post case in one significant respect. Here the constitutionality of the interview ban is challenged by prisoners as well as newsmen. Thus these appeals, unlike Washington Post, raise the question whether, inmates as *836 individuals have a personal constitutional right to demand interviews with willing reporters. Because I agree with the majority that they do not, I join Part I of the opinion of the Court. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425784. Public record. Not legal advice.