Nathaniel Lindell, Cross-Appellee v. Matthew J. Frank, and Cindy O'DOnnell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that prison officials could accommodate prisoner’s First Amendment rights “without a large burden on staff.”
• concluding that defendants’ interests in screening for hidden messages and saving staff resources are both legitimate and that “there is a rational connection between these interests and a policy that lowers the overall number of mailed items that require screening”
• determining that a prison’s ban on publication clippings was reasonably related to a legitimate interest in saving staff resources to screen for hidden messages
• determining that a prison’s ban on publication clippings was reasonably related to a legitimate interest in saving staff resources to screen for hidden messages
• stating “[flhere are four factors that courts must consider in determining whether a prison regulation is constitutional”
• considering only whether the “publisher’s only” rule was unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).