Robert Shaw, et al. v. Kevin Murphy (532 U.S. 223)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 18, 2001 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 532 U.S. 223 · 121 S. Ct. 1475
- Decided
- April 18, 2001
- Term
- October Term 2000
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- First Amendment
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. Under our decision in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), restrictions on prisoners’ communications to other inmates are constitutional if the restrictions are “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Id., at 89. In this case, we are asked to decide whether prisoners possess a First Amendment right to provide legal assistance that enhances the protections otherwise available under Turner. We hold that they do not. I While respondent Kevin Murphy was incarcerated at the Montana State Prison, he served as an “inmate law clerk,” providing legal assistance to fellow prisoners. Upon learning that inmate Pat Tracy had been charged with assaulting Correctional Officer Glen Galle, Murphy decided to assist Tracy with his defense. Prison rules prohibited Murphy’s assignment to the case, but he nonetheless investigated the assault. After discovering that other inmates had complained about Officer Galle’s conduct, Murphy sent Tracy a letter, which included the following: “I do want to help you with your ease against Galle. It wasn’t your fault and I know he provoked whatever happened! Don’t plead guilty because we can get at least 100 witnesses to testify that Galle is an over zealous guard who has a personal agenda to punish and harrass [sic] inmates. He has made homo-sexual [sic] advances towards certain inmates and…
Excerpt of a 14,574-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.