The Baxter County Quorum Court will meet Tuesday to consider appropriating more than $100,000 to pay costs from a lengthy federal lawsuit after the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the county’s jail mail policy violated the First Amendment.

In a decision filed February 24, 2025, a three-judge panel concluded that Baxter County’s “postcard-only” mail policy created an unconstitutional ban on publications from the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC), ending a legal battle that began in 2017.

“Under these facts, with an onerous burden on the free speech right and little burden on the Jail to provide the requested accommodation, the district court did not err in concluding the Jail’s policy is not reasonably related to its legitimate objectives,” wrote Circuit Judge Jonathan Grasz in the court’s 11-page opinion.

The ruling emphasized that while prison officials need discretion to maintain security, they must still provide a rational basis for their policies—”a low bar,” the court noted, “but one that Baxter County fails to clear.”

Case Origins and Implementation

The dispute arose after the jail implemented a “postcard-only” policy in January 2012, restricting all non-legal mail to postcard size. Between 2016 and 2017, HRDC attempted to send various publications to inmates at the Baxter County Detention Center, including its monthly magazine “Prison Legal News,” a book called “The Habeas Citebook,” and other informational materials. These items were rejected and returned marked “Refused” or “Return to Sender Post Cards Only.”

HRDC filed a federal lawsuit in August 2017, alleging violations of its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The case’s procedural history involved multiple rulings and an earlier appeal before reaching this final decision.

A key finding in both the district and appeals court opinions was the arbitrary manner in which the jail implemented its mail policy. Lieutenant Sebastian Dennis, the acting jail administrator, testified that the sheriff and jail management exercised “subjective personal discretion” about what mail inmates could receive, with rules changing “on a whim” from day to day depending on the sheriff’s judgment.

The courts noted contradictory practices where jail officials claimed publications were security risks while simultaneously allowing inmates to keep “an enormous amount of paper” in their cells, including Bibles, “unlimited paper,” and books from the jail commissary or book cart.

Constitutional Analysis

The appeals court applied the four-factor test established in the Supreme Court case Turner v. Safley, which evaluates whether prison regulations that impact constitutional rights are “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”

While acknowledging the jail’s security and efficiency interests as legitimate, the court found the policy failed on three crucial factors:

1. HRDC had no viable alternative means to communicate its publications to inmates, unlike personal visitors who could use phone calls or in-person visits as alternatives to written communication.
2. The impact of accommodating HRDC’s publications would be minimal. The court noted that no publisher besides HRDC had ever sought to send publications to the jail, and permitting such materials would have a “de minimis” impact on jail operations.
3. Ready alternatives to the regulation existed with little cost to the jail.

The “law library” at the jail consisted merely of “six books held in a milk crate,” some with missing pages, according to court records. The jail’s book cart was limited to what officials deemed “uplifting fiction,” which did not include HRDC’s legal publications.

Sheriff John Montgomery’s testimony further undermined the county’s case. The district court found his testimony lacked credibility when he claimed during a 2022 evidentiary hearing that HRDC could donate materials to the jail—a claim that contradicted his earlier testimony acknowledging no publisher could send books into the jail.

Costly Outcome for County

The appeals court affirmed not only the constitutional violation but also upheld a substantial $259,350 attorney fee award to HRDC, rejecting Baxter County’s claims that the award was inappropriate because HRDC received only nominal damages.

The panel noted HRDC also secured a permanent injunction, which represented “not technical or partial but a full vindication of its central claim.”

According to documents before the Quorum Court, the county must now appropriate $102,757.24 from the Jail Maintenance & Operation Fund to cover the portion of the judgment exceeding the county’s insurance coverage through the Arkansas Association of Counties Risk Management Fund.

Broader Implications

The 8th Circuit emphasized that its ruling does not mean all postcard-only mail policies are unconstitutional. Rather, it highlighted the fact-intensive nature of these cases, explaining that “different jails with different facts can result in different outcomes.”

The ruling distinguished this case from prior decisions where similar policies were upheld, noting that in those instances, inmates had alternative means to access publications, such as electronic tablets or kiosks, which were not available at the Baxter County jail.

The decision could impact detention facilities throughout the 8th Circuit, potentially requiring them to modify mail policies to accommodate publications from third-party publishers, even if they maintain postcard-only restrictions for personal correspondence.

Paul Wright, Executive Director of the Human Rights Defense Center, called the ruling a significant victory for press freedom and prisoners’ rights.

“The constitutional free speech rights of the news media have been vindicated and now prisoners can read publications in the jail,” Wright said. “This ruling affirms that publishers have a right to communicate with incarcerated individuals and that correctional facilities cannot impose arbitrary restrictions that effectively create a total ban on educational and legal materials.”

The Quorum Court will consider the appropriation ordinance at its meeting Tuesday, May 6, at 5:30 p.m. in the second-floor courtroom of the Baxter County Courthouse.