Nonprofit law firm sues Ohio corrections department over handling of inmates' legal mail
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) – A method some Ohio prisons use to prevent drugs from being trafficked into facilities through the mail is being challenged in court, with a nonprofit law firm claiming it invades inmates' privacy.
The Ohio Justice and Policy Center filed a lawsuit on May 6 against senior managers of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction over the screening of mail between inmates and their attorneys.
'The paramount aspect of an attorney-client relationship is trust,' said Gabe Davis, OJPC Chief Executive Officer. 'This policy undermines that trust and opens the door for private correspondence to be viewed with total disregard for our client's civil rights and our First Amendment rights. We are suing the department because this has to stop now.'
At the center of the lawsuit is the department's 'Legal Mail Policy Variance,' which instructs prison staff to make a photo copy of legal mail in front of the inmate it is addressed to, then give them the copy and shred the original.
The practice is intended to secure legal mail and ensure contraband does not enter prisons. The policy was introduced at four of the 28 prisons the state oversees in winter and spring of 2024, including the Southern Ohio Correctional Institution, Marion Correctional Institution, Lebanon Correctional Institution and Ross Correctional Institution.
'The Legal Mail Policy Variance replaces a brief process of opening and inspecting legal mail with an extended process of copying and shredding that allows for many opportunities to read confidential legal mail,' the filing reads.
The lawsuit alleges the policy has resulted in at least one confirmed instance of a staff member reading an inmates' legal mail, which was copied out of the incarcerated person's presence.
The nonprofit law firm claims in the suit that it often receives mail from inmates containing allegations of misconduct by specific corrections officers, which could lead to retaliation if read by the employee.
'If our clients can't trust that they can be fully honest with us, we can't do our jobs,' said Lizett Martinez Schreiber, the managing attorney with OJPC. 'As attorneys, we have a duty to maintain trust. If the incarcerated people we work with feel like their mail is being monitored they won't be as transparent in their letters, fearing repercussions.'
Other mail in Ohio prisons are opened and scanned by staff, before being delivered to inmates on an electronic tablet. The lawsuit only addresses legal mail practices, and does not challenge the handling of any other kind of mail.
Drugs known as K2 or Spice, a synthetic cannabinoid, can be sprayed onto paper, incorporated into ink and otherwise concealed within mail, according to the chemical detection company 908 Devices. This can make it difficult to detect drugs visually, therefore many prisons have moved to photocopying mail in recent years.
The civil rights suit claims the legal mail policy violates inmates First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, including their rights to freedom of speech and due process. The legal filing seeks to require the four correctional institutions to halt this policy and return to its original process.
A spokeswoman for Ohio's corrections department said the state agency does not comment on pending litigation.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Court fight pits religious group that doesn't want LGBTQ+ employees against WA law
(Photo by) A Christian ministry in Yakima and the state of Washington are clashing in federal court over whether the religious group can decline to hire LGBTQ+ employees. The Union Gospel Mission of Yakima runs a homeless shelter, addiction recovery programs and medical and dental clinics. The mission wants only to hire employees who follow the biblical notions forbidding sex outside of marriage and between anyone other than a man and woman. State law forbids hiring practices based on sexual orientation, with limited exceptions for religious organizations. Federal appeals court judges in Seattle heard arguments Tuesday in the case, which began in 2023. The dispute serves as a First Amendment test of Washington's anti-discrimination law and could land at the U.S. Supreme Court, where conservative justices have signaled interest in interrogating the statute. At least two other lawsuits over the law are also underway. 'The First Amendment does not allow the government to force a religious organization to hire someone who rejects its faith,' said the mission's attorney Jeremiah Galus, from the conservative Christian law firm Alliance Defending Freedom. The arguments at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came months after a federal judge in eastern Washington blocked the state from enforcing the law against the gospel mission. The attorney general's office has said it has no plans to take action. The state appealed, leading to Tuesday's court hearing. The three-judge panel in a Seattle courtroom sounded skeptical of the state's arguments. Judge Johnnie Rawlinson noted the courts' history of respect for the right to practice religion without government interference. 'It's really difficult to use a state law to negate those rights,' said Rawlinson, a Clinton appointee. 'It's a difficult challenge.' The case began after the mission reportedly chose to take down two job postings focused on information technology and operations because of applicants with opposing beliefs on sexual orientation. The mission said the positions are 'ministerial,' in line with a state Supreme Court ruling exempting such employees. The state agreed and argued that this makes the case moot. But Judge Patrick Bumatay suggested the opposite is true. By saying it won't go after the mission for these employees, the state implies it could enforce the law when the group goes to hire for other positions, he said. 'It almost heightens the need for this pre-enforcement action,' said Bumatay, a Trump appointee who is openly gay. Galus on Tuesday walked back the mission's previous argument, acknowledging the two specific employees aren't ministerial. Washington deputy solicitor general Cynthia Alexander said the mission is trying to broaden the current exemption for ministers. 'They want to be able to discriminate in hiring for any position,' Alexander told the panel of judges. Attorneys general from 20 states, including Florida, Idaho and Texas, have urged the court to rule in favor of the Union Gospel Mission. The American Civil Liberties Union has sided with the state, arguing the district court's ruling 'would effectively strip an enormous number of employees of critical antidiscrimination protections.' 'That would include not only employees of religious organizations but also the thousands of employees of the religiously affiliated hospitals that account for nearly half of the hospital beds in the state and all those who work for the myriad religiously affiliated charities, among others,' the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State wrote in a court filing. The panel made no ruling after Tuesday's arguments. It could be months until they release one. President Donald Trump appointed two of the three judges hearing the case, Bumatay and Judge Daniel Bress. The Washington Law Against Discrimination prohibits employers from refusing to hire, firing or underpaying employees on the basis of race, national origin, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, among other grounds. The law exempts those with fewer than eight employees, as well as nonprofit religious organizations. In 2021, the Washington state Supreme Court ruled that the religious exemption applies only to employees considered ministers. In that case, Seattle's Union Gospel Mission asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the matter. The court declined, but Justice Samuel Alito took issue with the Washington decision, writing that it could conflict with the U.S. Constitution and 'warrant review' in the future. 'The day may soon come when we must decide whether the autonomy guaranteed by the First Amendment protects religious organizations' freedom to hire co-religionists without state or judicial interference,' Alito wrote. 'To force religious organizations to hire messengers and other personnel who do not share their religious views would undermine not only the autonomy of many religious organizations but also their continued viability,' the conservative justice continued. Just over a year after the state Supreme Court ruling, Seattle Pacific University, a private Christian school affiliated with the Free Methodist Church, decided to keep its policy that employees follow the 'traditional view on Biblical marriage and sexuality.' Then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson launched an investigation into Seattle Pacific University's hiring practices based on the new reading of the anti-discrimination law. In 2022, the school sued the state, arguing the probe from Ferguson, who is now governor, violated its constitutional right to religious freedom. The following year, the Union Gospel Mission of Yakima got in on the action, filing its lawsuit against the state. At first, a federal judge in Richland dismissed the mission's case, since the state had taken no action to enforce the anti-discrimination law against it. The 9th Circuit reversed that decision last summer. A few months later, the same Richland judge, a Biden appointee, sided with the Yakima gospel mission, granting a preliminary injunction. The Seattle Pacific University case is ongoing in federal court in Seattle, with a trial set for next April. And that's not the only other case pending on this issue. Two weeks ago, the 9th Circuit heard arguments in the case of another religious nonprofit, called World Vision, that rescinded a Washington woman's job offer after learning she was in a same-sex marriage. A federal judge in Seattle had ruled World Vision violated the state anti-discrimination law. That appeal, before a different three-judge panel, is awaiting a ruling.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge blocks Florida's social media ban for children
June 3 (UPI) -- A federal judge in Florida on Tuesday temporarily blocked a state ban on social media for children, calling it "likely unconstitutional." Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a 58-page order, reversing part of the 2024 state law, which prohibits anyone under the age of 16 from using certain social media platforms, with the exception of 14- and 15-year-olds who have parental permission. "Although this court today finds that Florida's challenged law is likely unconstitutional, it does not doubt that parents and legislators in the state have sincere concerns about the effects that social media use may have on youth, nor does it render parents or the state powerless to address those concerns," Walker wrote. House Bill 3, also called "Online Protections for Minors," received bipartisan support when it passed last year. The bill, which was signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, requires social media sites to delete accounts for anyone under the age of 14 or face hefty fines. The law was scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, but the state attorney general's office agreed not to enforce it until the judge could rule on the request for a preliminary injunction. NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which represents social media platforms including Meta, Google and Snapchat, filed their lawsuit in October. "This ruling vindicates our argument that Florida's statute violates the First Amendment by blocking and restricting minors -- and likely adults as well -- from using certain social media websites to view lawful content," Matt Schruers, president of Computer & Communications Industry Association, said Tuesday in a statement. While the judge focused on the social media provisions of the law, he left intact the age verification requirement to access pornographic websites. "An established principle of the First Amendment context is that enabling individuals to voluntarily restrict problematic content at the receiving end is preferred over restricting speech at the source," Walker wrote. "In this context, that means that parents are best positioned to make the appropriately individualized determinations about whether or when their children should use social media platforms," the judge added. Attorney General James Uthmeier, who was named as a defendant in the case, disagreed with Tuesday's ruling. His office said it plans to appeal. "Florida parents voted through their elected representatives for a law protecting kids from the harmful and sometimes lifelong tragic impacts of social media," said spokesperson Jeremy Redfern. "These platforms do not have a constitutional right to addict kids to their products."
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Federal judge blocks Florida's social media ban for children
June 3 (UPI) -- A federal judge in Florida on Tuesday temporarily blocked a state ban on social media for children, calling it "likely unconstitutional." Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a 58-page order, reversing part of the 2024 state law, which prohibits anyone under the age of 16 from using certain social media platforms, with the exception of 14- and 15-year-olds who have parental permission. "Although this court today finds that Florida's challenged law is likely unconstitutional, it does not doubt that parents and legislators in the state have sincere concerns about the effects that social media use may have on youth, nor does it render parents or the state powerless to address those concerns," Walker wrote. House Bill 3, also called "Online Protections for Minors," received bipartisan support when it passed last year. The bill, which was signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis, requires social media sites to delete accounts for anyone under the age of 14 or face hefty fines. The law was scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, but the state attorney general's office agreed not to enforce it until the judge could rule on the request for a preliminary injunction. NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which represents social media platforms including Meta, Google and Snapchat, filed their lawsuit in October. "This ruling vindicates our argument that Florida's statute violates the First Amendment by blocking and restricting minors -- and likely adults as well -- from using certain social media websites to view lawful content," Matt Schruers, president of Computer & Communications Industry Association, said Tuesday in a statement. While the judge focused on the social media provisions of the law, he left intact the age verification requirement to access pornographic websites. "An established principle of the First Amendment context is that enabling individuals to voluntarily restrict problematic content at the receiving end is preferred over restricting speech at the source," Walker wrote. "In this context, that means that parents are best positioned to make the appropriately individualized determinations about whether or when their children should use social media platforms," the judge added. Attorney General James Uthmeier, who was named as a defendant in the case, disagreed with Tuesday's ruling. His office said it plans to appeal. "Florida parents voted through their elected representatives for a law protecting kids from the harmful and sometimes lifelong tragic impacts of social media," said spokesperson Jeremy Redfern. "These platforms do not have a constitutional right to addict kids to their products."
