# Reply Brief — Koutnik v. Brown, 128 S. Ct. 39 (2007) (No. 06-1171)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_2214%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Reply Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2007

## Text

~~ Saprame Coat US
3) | : wee

No. 06-1171

OFFICE ~¢ THE CIT:

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

jOSEPH D. KOUTNIK,
Petitioner,
Vv.

LEBBEUS BROWN, GERALD A. BERGE,
AND MATTHEW J. FRANK,
Respondents.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United
States Court of A~peals for the Seventh Circuit

PETITIONER’S REPLY TO BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

BARRY LEVENSTAM

Counsel of Record
HOWARD S. SUSKIN
SHORGE K. SATO
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
330 N. Wabash Ave.
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 222-9350

July 31, 2007 Attorneys for Petitioner
_ Re Nel ea AMR ame ec ERM eA omen cc I SO: AM EIS MOAI PE ATT CT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Do bg, I EES LIE ITE ii
E.R ae emernn oe pee as creas ee LA 1
I. This Court Should Grant This Petition To

Resolve The Circuit Split Over The Appropriate
Standard Of Review To Apply To Claims Of
Outgoing Prisoner Mail Censorship.............ccccseeeeee 1

A. The Cases Cited By Respondents Reflect A
Minority View That Is Contrary To This Court's
Precedent That Martinez And Turner Are
ache tscicnencuiccvosonmcetnnipwadvlaaannebivsbiimsesusacigennhinbineinvesienn 2

B. Respondents’ Assertion That Martinez And
Turner Are “Extremely Similar In Application”
Ignores The Substantial Difference Between
“Rational Basis” Review And “Intermediate
RNDIEIITI; , sisdshcteniacicintinasadiniubunnduishintncenbataniebieasaiaanioniti 3

II. This Court Should Grant This Petition To
Resolve Whether The State May Censor
Outgoing Prisoner Mail Based On Its View That
The Mail’s Content is inconsistent With The
State’s General Rehabilitation Goals. 0.0.0.0... 5

A. The Seventh Circuit Decision Contradicts
Martinez, Which Does Not Permit Censorship Of
Outgoing Prisoner Mail Because Its Content Is
Merely Inconsistent With General Rehabilitation
IIIA Ledihes snsbecotnapeies Even if this Court were persuaded that this alternative “security”
justification had merit, the appropriate response would be for this
Court to grant the Petition and remand, not to deny it outright. See
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Flowers, 330 U.S. 464, 468 (1947).

Respectfully submitted,

BARRY LEVENSTAM

Counsel of Record
HOWARD S. SUSKIN
SHORGE K. SATO
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
330 N. Wabash Ave.
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 222-9350

July 31, 2007 Attorneys for Petitioner

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_2214%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.