A Virginia law that prohibits inmates from encouraging other inmates to engage in work stoppages or protest demonstrations does not violate the First Amendment, a federal appeals court panel has ruled. The panel reasoned that the law furthers legitimate prison interests.
Inmate Askari Lumumba challenged the Virginia law that prohibits inmates from “[p]articipating in, or encouraging others to participate in, a work stoppage, or a group demonstration.” Lumumba contended that the measure violated the First Amendment. He filed the lawsuit after prison officials transferred him to a different prison after learning of e-mails he had sent trying to organize inmates into protesting and disrupting. In fact, prison officials had placed Lumumba in 30 days of disciplinary segregation for violating the law.
After this punishment, Lumumba filed a habeas corpus action in federal district court. The district court dismissed Lumumba’s action, finding that the law was not vague and did not violate the First Amendment.
Lumumba then appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court’s ruling in its Sept. 6, 2024, decision in Lumumba v. Kiser. The appeals court analyzed whether the Virginia law violated the First Amendment by applying the standard from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Turner v. Safley (1987).
Under that standard, a regulation is constitutional if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological concerns, such as prison safety or rehabilitation. The Turner standard consists of four factors:
- 1. Whether there is a valid, rational connection between the prison regulation and the legitimate government interest put forward to justify it.
- 2. Whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates.
- 3. The impact that accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocationof prison resources generally.
- 4. Whether there are ready alternatives.
The appeals court panel, in a majority opinion authored by Judge Julius Richardson, found that the policy furthers the prison system’s legitimate interests in order, discipline, and security.
“Group demonstrations can disrupt the normal order of prison operations and unsettle the disciplinary efforts undertaken therein,” Richardson wrote. “They also can balloon into full-scale riots, which pose a danger to prison officers and other inmates.”
The 4th Circuit also said there were alternative ways for inmates to express their displeasure with prison conditions, such as filing official grievances. Lumumba had argued that there was a much narrower way to address prison officials’ concerns, and that was to allow them to crack down on inmates who actually start riots. But the appeals court agreed with prison officials that “[r]equiring prison officials to wait until riots break out would jeopardize prison security and risk danger to officers and other prisoners.”
The appeals court also found that the law was not too vague. The court concluded that “[p]rison administrators deserve substantial deference to design policies and procedures in the best interests of their institutions.”
Judge James A. Wynn Jr. issued a partial dissenting opinion. He reasoned that the majority erred in only considering whether Lumumba’s facial challenge to the Virginia law was at issue. Instead, the dissenting judge said that the panel should consider whether the law was unconstitutional as applied to Lumumba and his specific conduct.
See also: Rights of Prisoners
David L. Hudson Jr. teaches First Amendment law and constitutional law classes at Belmont University College of Law. He is the author, co-author, or co-editor of more than 50 books, including The Constitution Explained: A Guide for Every American (Visible Ink Press, 2022) and The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (Thomson Reuters, 2012).
The Free Speech Center newsletter offers a digest of First Amendment and news media news every other week. Subscribe for free here: https://bit.ly/3kG9uiJ