Jack Jersawitz v. Jack Hanberry

Citation: 783 F.2d 1532Docket: 85-8434

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; April 17, 1986; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jack Jersawitz, a self-identified independent journalist, sought a declaratory judgment against officials at the Atlanta Penitentiary regarding a prison regulation that restricts inmate interviews to media representatives employed by licensed radio or television stations. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia upheld the regulation's constitutionality, granting summary judgment for the defendants. Jersawitz produces a public access television show but is not employed by any media outlet, which he acknowledged disqualifies him from the definition of a media representative under the Bureau of Prisons regulation. 

Jersawitz's request to interview inmate Father Bourgeois was denied by the Warden based on this classification. The district court applied a rational relationship test rather than a compelling state interest analysis, concluding the Bureau of Prisons had a legitimate basis for its regulation. Jersawitz argued that the regulation unfairly discriminates against journalists based on employment status, asserting that if some journalists are allowed access, all should be permitted unless a compelling state interest is demonstrated. However, the court found no evidence of a content-based discrimination in the regulation or bad faith from the government in its implementation. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision.

News media do not possess constitutional rights of access to prisons beyond what is available to the general public, as established in Pell v. Procunier and Saxbe v. Washington Post Co. Jersawitz argues that these cases are distinguishable because the restrictions were applied evenly, while here, the Bureau of Prisons claims to grant interviews based on journalists' perceived fairness and objectivity, which allegedly violates the Equal Protection Clause. However, the regulation aims to maintain prison security and order by allowing access only to responsible representatives of recognized media organizations, thus ensuring accurate reporting without compromising security. 

Jersawitz asserts that the selective granting of access violates the Equal Protection Clause unless a compelling state interest can be demonstrated, which he claims the Bureau has not done. The court agrees with the district court's ruling that compelling state interest analysis applies only when constitutional rights or suspect classes are involved. This case does not meet those criteria, as it does not involve a constitutional right or invidious discrimination, warranting strict scrutiny. 

The regulation is deemed rationally related to the Bureau's need to maintain security and order, especially in a maximum-security facility. The administration of prisons is a complex task where security is paramount, and prison administrators are afforded significant deference in establishing policies necessary for maintaining order and discipline.

Professional expertise of corrections officials is critical in evaluating concerns related to inmate management, and courts typically defer to their judgment unless substantial evidence suggests otherwise. The Bureau of Prisons did not exaggerate its concerns or abuse discretion in establishing the regulation in question. Jersawitz argued that the government must choose the least restrictive regulatory approach when classifying media members based on employment, but this case does not involve a constitutional issue. The argument was previously addressed in Block v. Rutherford, which established that administrative officials are not required to adopt the least restrictive means to achieve legitimate objectives. The regulation in question does not create an arbitrary classification violating Jersawitz's equal protection rights; it is rationally related to maintaining order and security at the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary while allowing limited media access to designated inmates. The court affirmed the regulation's validity.