Court: Supreme Court of the United States; February 24, 1969; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
Mr. Justice Fortas delivered the Court's opinion regarding a petitioner serving a life sentence in Tennessee, who was transferred to maximum security for violating a prison regulation prohibiting inmates from assisting others with legal matters. The regulation was deemed void by the District Court, which argued it limited access to federal habeas corpus, particularly affecting illiterate prisoners. Although the petitioner was moved to a disciplinary cell block after the initial ruling, he regained regular privileges only after promising not to assist other inmates. A subsequent hearing reaffirmed the District Court's order. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision, arguing the regulation did not interfere with federal habeas corpus rights, asserting that the state’s interest in maintaining prison discipline justified the regulation's restrictions. The Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental importance of habeas corpus, asserting that prisoners must have unobstructed access to courts to present complaints, regardless of their financial status. The Court acknowledged that while prison administration and discipline are state responsibilities, they cannot infringe upon federal constitutional or statutory rights. State regulations conflicting with these rights may be invalidated, highlighting a precedent where racial segregation in prisons was ruled unconstitutional despite claims of maintaining order.
In Ex parte Hull, the Court invalidated a Tennessee regulation mandating that habeas corpus petitions be approved by prison authorities before submission to the court. The State argued that this requirement was essential for maintaining prison discipline; however, the Court ruled it violated the right to seek a writ of habeas corpus. It emphasized that Tennessee could not constitutionally prevent illiterate or poorly educated prisoners from filing such petitions. The District Court found that without assistance from a "jail-house lawyer," many prisoners’ constitutional claims would remain unheard, particularly given the high percentage of illiterate inmates in Tennessee’s prisons. Typically, federal courts appoint counsel only after an initial evaluation of post-conviction relief petitions, placing the burden on indigent prisoners to present their claims, often without adequate assistance. While the regulation aimed to address concerns about the disruptive nature of unskilled petitions, the Court reiterated that the State cannot impede a prisoner’s access to the courts. Tennessee's provision of limited resources, such as notarization and occasional contact with public defenders, was deemed insufficient, as there was no reliable system to assist prisoners. The State failed to demonstrate that depriving inmates of peer assistance did not effectively deny access to the essential writ of habeas corpus for those unable to prepare their petitions adequately.
Several states have implemented public defender systems that provide trained attorneys to assist prisoners with their habeas corpus petitions, funded by public resources. In one state, senior law students are employed to interview and advise inmates, while another state has a program where local bar association members visit prisons to consult with inmates about their cases. These initiatives suggest alternatives for inmate assistance, should the state decide to prohibit mutual support among prisoners. The state is allowed to impose reasonable restrictions on inmate interactions to prevent abuse of assistance-seeking activities, including regulating the time and location of such interactions and punishing unauthorized exchanges. However, without reasonable alternatives for inmates to receive assistance in preparing post-conviction relief petitions, the state cannot enforce a regulation that prevents inmates from helping each other. The Court of Appeals' judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. According to 28 U.S.C. § 2242, habeas corpus applications must be written and verified by the individual seeking relief or their representative. States cannot regulate legal practice in ways that violate federally protected rights. The preparation of post-conviction relief petitions, while typically benefitting from legal expertise, is often carried out by laypersons, as suggested by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2242.
