Elizabeth G. Simpson
EMANCIPATE NC
N.C. State Bar # 41596
P.O. Box 309
Durham NC 27702
elizabeth@emancipatenc.org
703-587-8563
(licensed in North Carolina)
Aleksandra B. Chauhan
Federal Bar No.14298
P.O. Box 5381
Columbia, SC 29250
803-381-2607
aleks@chauhanlawllc.com
Joel Anderson, Interim Director
South Carolina Department of Corrections
4444 Broad River Road
P.O. Box 21787
Columbia, SC 29221‐1787
Christina Catoe Bigelow
Deputy General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
S.C. Department of Corrections
4444 Broad River Road
Columbia, South Carolina 29210
(803) 896-1738
bigelow.christina@doc.sc.gov
via Certified Mail & Email
January 13, 2026
Re: Demand to Rescind Unconstitutional Book & Publications Policy:
SCDC PS‐10.08 § 9.1
Director Anderson,
We represent Firestorm Books, an independent bookseller in Asheville, North
Carolina, and Asheville Prison Books, a volunteer collective dedicated to making
books available to incarcerated people. Both have a history of mailing books to
people incarcerated in the South Carolina state prisons. This letter serves as formal
notice that SCDC’s publications policy, PS‐10.08, “Inmate Correspondence
Privileges,” § 9.1, as amended in 2025, violates the First and Fourteenth
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court
and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Unless SCDC promptly rescinds or materially revises § 9.1 and associated
practices to bring them into compliance with federal constitutional law, we intend to
file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees.
I. The Challenged Policy and Recent 2025 Amendments
SCDC Policy PS‐10.08 governs correspondence for incarcerated individuals,
including regulating incoming publications. The front page expressly cites
Montcalm Publishing Corp. v. Beck, 80 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 1996), as relevant
authority. Section 9.1, as revised by Change 2 (August 13, 2025) and Change 3
(October 16, 2025), sharply limits the sources from which incarcerated people may
receive books.
In substance, § 9.1 now provides that:
● Incarcerated people may receive single copies of books only if they are sent
directly from a small, named list of “approved vendors” (including Hamilton
Books, Books N Things Warehouse, EBooks2Inmates/BooksToInmates, and
SureShot Books), and
● Books from Barnes & Noble and Books‐A‐Million are permitted only if
purchased online, while books purchased in‐store, even when shipped directly
from those retailers, are categorically rejected and sent to contraband for
disposal; and
● A “legitimate invoice or receipt” must be enclosed with the shipment, and if it
is not received within fifteen working days, “the publication will be sentdirectly to Contraband for disposal.”
Magazines and other subscription publications are treated differently and are
not limited to this restricted vendor list, even though they present comparable
security and contraband risks. These provisions operate regardless of the content of
the books, whether they are religious, educational, legal, or otherwise plainly
protected speech.
II. Constitutional Framework
Prisoners retain First Amendment rights that may be restricted only by
regulations reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Turner v. Safley,
482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). The Supreme Court has specifically held that regulations
governing incoming publications must be evaluated under Turner’s reasonableness
standard. Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 413 (1989).
In Thornburgh, the Court upheld content‐based rejection of individual
publications that threatened security, order, or rehabilitation, but emphasized the
need for content‐related justifications, case‐by‐case review, and procedural
protections. The Court did not endorse arbitrary, source‐based bans that turn solely
on who sold the book or whether the shipment happens to include a receipt.
The Fourth Circuit has repeatedly recognized that publishers and outside
correspondents themselves hold First Amendment and due process rights when
their communications with incarcerated readers are censored. In Montcalm
Publishing Corp. v. Beck, the Fourth Circuit held that a publisher had a Fourteenth
Amendment due process right to notice and an opportunity to be heard when its
magazines were disapproved for delivery to Virginia prisoners.
III. PS‐10.08 § 9.1 Fails the Turner Reasonableness Test
Under Turner, legitimacy is assessed via four familiar factors. SCDC’s
current § 9.1 fails each.
- No rational connection between the vendor list and a legitimate
penological interest
The first Turner factor asks whether there is a valid, rational connection
between the regulation and a legitimate governmental interest. 482 U.S. at 89. Section 9.1 does not rest on content, contraband, or demonstrable security characteristics of the books themselves. Instead, it draws arbitrary lines based on:
● Whether the seller’s name appears on a short approved‐vendor list;
● Whether a national bookseller (Barnes & Noble, Books‐A‐Million) processed
the sale online rather than in‐store; and
● Whether the package happens to contain a “legitimate” printed receipt,
regardless of proof of payment via other means, or legitimate bona fide
donation of the item.
SCDC already opens and inspects all incoming publications and packages for
contraband and prohibited content. Security interests are therefore addressed
through existing inspection and disapproval mechanisms under §§ 9.4 and 19
(Correspondence Review Committee), which authorize rejection of publications
containing escape plans, weapons instructions, gang materials, sexually explicit
content, or other specific risks.
By contrast, § 9.1’s vendor restrictions are agnostic to content and turn
exclusively on the identity or business model of the seller. SCDC has not identified
(and we are aware of no evidence supporting) any legitimate penological reason
why:
● A book shipped from an in‐store purchase at Barnes & Noble is more
dangerous than the same title bought online;
● Books sold by only six named vendors are safer or easier to inspect than
books sent by other mainstream or independent booksellers or purveyors; or
● The absence of a paper receipt, as opposed to digital payment records or
indication of donation/gift, creates a security risk sufficient to justify
destruction of the book.
Without a concrete security rationale, these distinctions are arbitrary and
irrational under Turner.
- Severe burden on inmates’ and publishers’ ability to exercise First
Amendment rights
The second factor considers whether alternative means remain open to
exercise the right. 482 U.S. at 90. Books remain a central avenue for religious
practice, education, rehabilitation, and legal self‐help. Limiting access to books only
when purchased from a tiny stable of vendors—many of whom specialize in
“prisoner services” and may charge higher prices or offer limited
catalogs—substantially restricts:
● The range of titles available (including niche academic, political, cultural, or
religious works);
● The ability of families, faith communities, and grassroots groups to send
meaningful, affordable books; and
● The ability of publishers and authors to reach incarcerated readers.
The Supreme Court has explicitly recognized the importance of incoming
publications, and the Fourth Circuit has recognized in Montcalm that publishers
themselves are directly injured when their materials are denied admission to
prisons. The burden here is not marginal: for many low‐income families and for
small or independent presses, the vendor list effectively functions as a ban,
particularly with the requirement of a “receipt,” constructively banning donated
publications. - Minimal impact of accommodation on guards, incarcerated people,
and resources
The third factor considers the impact that accommodation of the right will
have on guards, other inmates, and prison resources. 482 U.S. at 90. SCDC already
operates a regime in which:
● All incoming publications are inspected for contraband;
● Publications can be rejected on enumerated, content‐linked grounds and
referred to the Correspondence Review Committee; and
● Staff track and process packages through the mailroom and property control.
Allowing books from any bona fide publisher, bookstore, or
purveyor—including in‐store purchases and non‐listed vendors—would not
materially increase inspection costs. Mailroom staff must open the package, inspect
the content, and verify that it is a book regardless of vendor. Other systems,
including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, safely allow hardcover and softcover books
from “the publisher, a book club, or a bookstore,” without limiting inmates to a
handful of named retailers. See U.S.D.O.J., Federal Bureau of Prisons, “Incoming
Publications,” available here.
SCDC’s vendor list therefore does not meaningfully reduce operational
burdens. It simply reduces the flow of lawful books.
- Obvious, less‐restrictive alternatives demonstrate overbreadth
The fourth Turner factor asks whether there are “ready alternatives” that
fully meet security needs at de minimis cost, suggesting that the challenged policy
is an exaggerated response. 482 U.S. at 90–91. SCDC already has at its disposal,
and in fact uses, less restrictive alternatives:
● Content‐based review by mailroom staff and the Correspondence Review
Committee under §§ 9.4 and 19;
● Existing prohibitions on contraband, sexually explicit materials, STG/gang
content, and escape‐related content;
● Property limits and security classifications, including heightened restrictions
for RHU/SSR and similar units; and
● Standard mailroom procedures for logging, tracking, and returning
disapproved items.
Other jurisdictions employ source requirements keyed to generic categories
(publisher/bookstore/book club) and still satisfy security needs without locking
families into a micro‐list of for‐profit prison vendors. See U.S.D.O.J., Federal
Bureau of Prisons, “Incoming Publications,” available here.
The existence of widely used, easily administrable alternatives demonstrates
that SCDC’s choice to restrict incoming books to six named sellers and destroy
books over paperwork defects is an exaggerated and unreasonable response.
IV. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Violations
A. Destruction of Books Without Adequate Process
Section 9.1 mandates that if a shipment does not include a “legitimate invoice
or receipt,” and no replacement is received within fifteen working days, the book
“will be sent directly to Contraband for disposal.” There is no requirement that:
● The publisher or bookseller receive notice that its book was rejected;
● The sender be given an opportunity to provide proof of payment or legitimate
donations or otherwise cure any defect; or
● Any neutral decision‐maker reviews the rejection.
This is a paradigmatic deprivation of property without due process for both
the incarcerated recipient (who has a recognized property interest in lawfully
procured books) and the outside sender/publisher whose product has been
destroyed.
In Montcalm, the Fourth Circuit held that a publisher has a clearly protected
due‐process interest in receiving notice and an opportunity to object when its
publications are disapproved for receipt by prisoners. SCDC cites Montcalm in
PS‐10.08 yet ignores its core holding by adopting a regime that destroys books
outright with no notice to the publisher at all when “invoice” rules are not satisfied.
Similarly, Procunier v. Martinez requires that senders be notified of mail rejections
and given a chance to protest the decision to a higher prison official. SCDC’s
automatic disposal of books over invoice issues, with no meaningful opportunity for
the sender to respond, violates these established procedural safeguards.
B. Arbitrary, Unequal Treatment of Comparable Publications
Section 9.1’s disparate treatment of books versus magazines and other paid
subscriptions—which are not restricted to the approved‐vendor list—compounds the
arbitrary and capricious nature of the policy.
Where two types of print media pose similar security and contraband risks,
but one is heavily restricted based on vendor identity while the other is not, the
disparity undermines any claim that the policy is grounded in genuine penological
concerns rather than convenience or favoritism toward particular commercial
vendors.
V. Required Remedial Actions
To avoid litigation, SCDC must suspend enforcement of the challenged
aspects of § 9.1 and implement a constitutionally compliant policy within 30 days of
receipt of this letter. At minimum, that requires:
- Eliminate the narrow named‐vendor list.
Permit incarcerated people to receive books from any bona fide publisher,
bookstore, or book distributor, whether online or in‐store, subject to standard
inspection and content‐based review. - Rescind the “online‐only” requirements for Barnes & Noble and
Books‐A‐Million.
Treat shipments from those and other mainstream booksellers identically,
regardless of point of sale, so long as the package is shipped from the
business itself. - Replace the rigid invoice/receipt‐disposal rule with a fair process.
○ Provide written notice to the incarcerated person and the
sender/publisher when a shipment is withheld for any reason;
○ Allow the sender a reasonable opportunity to provide an invoice,
including one demonstrating that the book was a gift;
○ If the book is ultimately rejected, return it to the sender unless the
sender expressly declines, rather than automatically destroying it.
- Codify Montcalm‐compliant procedural protections.
Ensure that publishers and outside senders receive notice and a meaningful
opportunity to contest censorship decisions before an official different from
the initial censor, consistent with Montcalm. - Maintain content‐neutrality and narrow tailoring.
Any remaining limitations on the receipt of books must be tied to specific,
articulable security interests (e.g., contraband concealment, explicit criminal
instructions, STG‐related content) and applied on a
publication‐by‐publication basis, consistent with Thornburgh.
VI. Notice of Intent to Litigate
If SCDC declines to take the steps above and continues enforcing § 9.1 in its
current form, we are prepared to commence litigation on behalf of:
● Incarcerated individuals;
● Family members and other individual book senders; and
● Organizational plaintiffs (including publishers, booksellers, purveyors,
advocacy organizations, etc.) whose publications are being unlawfully
excluded.
Relief sought will include:
● A declaration that PS‐10.08 § 9.1 is unconstitutional on its face and as
applied;
● Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief barring enforcement of the
challenged provisions;
● Compensatory and, where appropriate, punitive damages for past censorship
and property destruction; and
● Attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Please respond in writing within 30 days of this letter, stating whether SCDC
will agree to suspend enforcement of the current § 9.1 and engage in good‐faith
discussions regarding a revised, constitutionally compliant publications policy. We
are available to confer regarding potential remedial language and implementation
timelines, but we will not delay filing suit if unconstitutional enforcement
continues.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth G. Simpson
Aleksandra B. Chauhan
