Together with fellow inmates in a Nebraska prison, Mr. Wolf initiated a lawsuit, accusing the prison staff of violating due process in the 14th Amendment clause. Wolff protested the way prison authorities handled the inspection of confidential mail between prisoners and their lawyers. During the proceedings, the district court dismissed the allegations but found the screening of mail to be in breach of the right of legal representation by the inmates. Regarding the disciplinary procedure allegations, the Court of Appeal reversed, granting the prison administration the mandate to utilize the mechanisms used for disciplinary proceedings in both the probation and parole proceedings (Supreme Court, 2020). The court also upheld the district court concerning the mail inspection.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
The issue was about the level with which prison staff could open and examine incoming correspondence from attorneys to prisoners. Under appeal, the prison rule established that all inbound and outbound mail had to be inspected, irrespective of whether they were from the inmates’ lawyers or the other sources.
The Ruling of the Court
Although inmates are not guaranteed complete due process rights, the court ruled that disciplinary hearings should include a formal notification to the accused indicating his or her charges, a written statement of proof or evidence, and a chance for the prisoner to invite witnesses and present evidence. But at the same time, the Court required authorities to deny the prisoners the right to provide proof or present witnesses should it prove unsafe for correctional safety. Furthermore, the court found it right for the prison authorities to inspect and open confidential letters, provided the process is done in prisoners’ presence.
The Reasoning Behind the Ruling
The practice of the Court of Appeals is impractical, and none of the above freedoms are violated by the processes already recognized by the defendants. An impossible administrative challenge would be introduced if prison authorities had to verify for each case if a letter was from an attorney before opening it for scrutiny. The Legislature should give the mandate for all correspondence to be marked explicitly by an attorney and identified with prison authorities first. When a mail from attorneys is examined, the prisoner should be present as a witness. The rule of law used by the Court was due process.
- Six votes for Wolff (Justice White, Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist).
- Three votes against (Justice Marshall, Brennan, and Douglas).
Wolff v. McDonnell 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Web.