Beard v. Banks
United States Supreme Court
548 U.S. 521 (2006)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) operated three special units for troublesome prisoners, with the long-term segregation unit (LTSU) being the most restrictive. The LTSU had two levels. All prisoners started at level 2. Level 2 prisoners had access to bedding, a plate and a cup, legal and personal correspondence, religious and legal materials, two library books, and writing paper. However, level 2 prisoners could have only one visitor per month; were not allowed phone calls; and had no access to the commissary, radio, television, newspapers, magazines, or personal photographs. After 90 days at level 2, a prisoner could graduate to level 1 for good behavior. The reward for moving to level 1 was access to one newspaper and five magazines, two visitors and one phone call per month, eligibility to earn money, access to the commissary, and a wider range of education and counseling options. Ronald Banks (plaintiff) was a level 2 LTSU prisoner. Banks sued the DOC’s secretary, Jeffery Beard (defendant), in federal district court alleging that denying level 2 prisoners all access to newspapers, magazines, and photographs violated the First Amendment as a matter of law. The DOC conceded that the rule infringed on First Amendment rights but claimed it was justified because the rule (1) motivated better prisoner behavior, (2) minimized the amount of property that prisoners controlled in their cells and that needed to be searched for contraband, and (3) minimized the amount of material a prisoner could use to create safety issues, like blow guns or cell fires. A prison official testified that newspapers and magazines had been effective incentives for encouraging better behavior from level 2 prisoners and discouraging level 1 prisoners from backsliding. The district court granted summary judgment to the DOC. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the judgment. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)
Concurrence (Thomas, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

