Tracy was a prisoner who was
accused to assaulting a guard. Murphy, another prisoner, decided to help
Tracy by sending him a letter with legal advice.
The prison sanctioned Murphy
for interfering with Tracy's proceedings, and generally being insolent.
Murphy appealed, claiming that
the prison's rules were an unconstitutional infringement on his 1st
Amendment right to free speech.
Murphy argued that he should
be allowed to provide legal assistance to other prisoners.
The Trial Court found for the
prison. Murphy appealed.
The Trial Court found that
there was a compelling government interest in maintaining order in the prison system, and that the rule was
rationally related to the
interest.
The Appellate Court reversed.
The prison appealed.
The Appellate Court found
that there was a balancing test between Murphy's 1st
Amendment rights and the
governmental interest, and in this case the interest was no strong enough
to override Murphy's rights.
The Court found that Murphy
was due special extra protection because he was giving legal advice.
The US Supreme Court reversed
and upheld the prison rule.
The US Supreme Court
acknowledged that prisoners do have some level of 1st
Amendment protection.
However, the Court found
that the prison's interest in administering the prison was enough of a compelling
government interest to override
Murphy's 1st Amendment rights.
The Court found that Murphy
was entitled to no special extra protection just because he was giving
legal advice.
See Turner v. Safley (482 U.S. 78 (1987)), which found that
restrictions on prisoner's communications to other inmates are
constitutional if the restrictions are reasonably related to
legitimate penologicial interests.
