Connection lost
Server error
Pell v. Procunier Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court upheld a California prison regulation banning face-to-face interviews between the press and specific, individual inmates. The Court found the ban did not violate inmates’ free speech rights, given alternative communication methods, or the press’s First Amendment rights, as the press has no special access.
Legal Significance: Established that the First Amendment does not grant the press a constitutional right of special access to government-controlled information or sources, including prisons, beyond that afforded to the general public. It also affirmed that inmate rights may be limited for legitimate penological reasons.
Pell v. Procunier Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The California Department of Corrections promulgated § 415.071, a regulation prohibiting press interviews with specifically requested, individual inmates. This policy was enacted after a violent prison incident, which officials attributed in part to the “public figure” status that certain inmates gained through media attention under a prior, more liberal interview policy. Four prison inmates and three professional journalists challenged the regulation’s constitutionality under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The inmates argued it violated their right to free speech, while the journalists contended it unconstitutionally infringed on their newsgathering ability under the freedom of the press. The state argued the ban was necessary to maintain institutional security and prevent certain inmates from gaining disproportionate influence, which could lead to disciplinary problems. Despite the ban, the press retained substantial access to prisons, including tours and the ability to speak with inmates encountered at random. Inmates also had alternative communication channels, such as mail and visits with family, attorneys, and clergy.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state prison regulation that prohibits face-to-face interviews between members of the press and individually designated inmates violate the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech for inmates or freedom of the press?
No. The Court held that the regulation does not violate the First Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proiden
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a state prison regulation that prohibits face-to-face interviews between members of the press and individually designated inmates violate the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech for inmates or freedom of the press?
Conclusion
This case establishes the key precedent that the press's First Amendment rights Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut al
Legal Rule
A prison inmate retains First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderi
Legal Analysis
The Court analyzed the inmates' and journalists' claims separately. Regarding the inmates' Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A prison regulation banning face-to-face interviews between journalists and specifically requested