skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 63937 Find in a Library
Title: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY PRISONERS' RIGHTS - JONES V. NORTH CAROLINA PRISONERS' LABOR UNION, INC. - 97 S. CT. 2532 (1977)
Journal: NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL LAW REVIEW  Volume:24  Dated:(1978)  Pages:290-301
Author(s): C HOEHER
Corporate Author: New York Law School
United States of America
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 12
Sponsoring Agency: New York Law School
New York, NY 10013
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: IN JONES V. NORTH CAROLINA PRISONERS' LABOR UNION, INC., THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DENIED THE RIGHT OF PRISON LABOR UNIONS TO SOLICIT THE MEMBERSHIP OF OTHER INMATES.
Abstract: CONTROVERSY AROSE WHEN OFFICIALS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION ADOPTED REGULATIONS THAT PROHIBITED INMATES FROM SOLICITING THE MEMBERSHIP OF OTHER INMATES, BARRED ALL MEETINGS OF PRISONERS' UNIONS, AND REJECTED BULK MAILINGS OF UNION MATERIALS INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION TO OTHER INMATES. A PRISONERS' UNION FILED SUIT, ASSERTING THAT FIRST AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS HAD BEEN VIOLATED. PRISON OFFICIALS CONTENDED THAT THE CREATION AND CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF A UNION WOULD PRODUCE TENSION BETWEEN MEMBER INMATES AND NONMEMBERS AND WOULD CREATE A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SITUATION. THEY ARGUED THEIR INTEREST IN PRISON SECURITY WAS PARAMOUNT TO THE PRISONERS' RIGHT TO UNIONIZE. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AGREED WITH PRISON OFFICIALS. IN DETERMINING WHAT RIGHTS EXTEND TO PRISONERS, COURTS TRADITIONALLY DEFER TO DECISIONS MADE BY PRISON AUTHORITIES. A BALANCING TEST IS FREQUENTLY USED WHEN COURTS CONSIDER PRISONER RIGHTS AND PRISON SECURITY CONCERNS. IMPORTANT CONCEPTS IN THIS TEST ARE SUBSTANTIAL AND COMPELLING STATE INTEREST, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, SUBSTANTIAL AND IMPORTANT INTEREST, AND LESS RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVES. THE JONES DECISION DOES NOT OUTLAW PRISONER UNIONS, BUT IT DOES NOT PROTECT THEIR ESTABLISHMENT. PRISONERS CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RESTRICTIVE REGULATIONS CONCERNING UNIONIZATION MUST SHOW THAT SUCH REGULATIONS BEAR NO RATIONAL RELATION TO THE FURTHERANCE OF LEGITIMATE PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES. CASE LAW IS REVIEWED, AND FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (DEP)
Index Term(s): Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Inmate unions; Inmates; Judicial decisions; North Carolina; Prisoner's rights; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=63937

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.