Remarking that it’s not feasible to jail the Iowa Department of Corrections for deliberately violating a court order, a Polk County judge has fined the state agency $1,500 for contempt of court.
The penalty stems from a lawsuit that 13 prison inmates, then housed at the Anamosa State Penitentiary, filed against the Corrections Department in 2018. The inmates alleged the state was violating their constitutional rights by denying them access to magazines or other materials with nudity or sexually explicit content.
The lawsuit was triggered by the Iowa Legislature’s 2018 revision of the state law that restricts inmate access to adult content. After the revisions, the law barred any commercially published material that contained not only sexually explicit content but also nudity.
A judge in the case concluded the law and the department policies that sprang from it were potentially too broad and could infringe on the inmates’ First Amendment rights. The court issued an injunction that stated the department “shall not prevent the distribution of materials to (the plaintiffs) and other inmates similarly situated that features mere non-sexually explicit nudity.”
In 2022, with the injunction still in place, one of the plaintiffs sought to hold the Corrections Department in contempt of court, alleging it was violating the 2019 order by denying his request to purchase lingerie magazines. The inmate later testified he had filed a complaint with the Iowa Office of Ombudsman on the issue. Court exhibits show that in October 2020, the ombudsman’s office told the inmate it questioned the department’s “dubious interpretation and application of the court injunction” — indicating it had been put on notice that it was violating the court order.
At about that same time, another plaintiff complained the department had taken away his copy of Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue — a magazine that’s commonly available at grocery stores and other retailers.
During the trial, Dee Radeke, an inmate and prison librarian, testified that after the Legislature amended the law, a prison security director asked him to pull from circulation any pictures of pinup girls, graphic novels or novels containing strong sexual content such as “Shades of Grey.”
Corrections Department Executive Officer Rebecca Bowker testified that she followed the court’s order “to a T,” but also testified that she wasn’t sure if she had even seen the order. In addition, Bowker testified she believed the policy prohibited photos of women in thong bikinis on the grounds that their genitalia would not be “substantially” covered.
The inmates lost their case, with Polk County District Court Judge Jeffrey Farrell concluding they did not have a First Amendment right to possess materials containing nudity. Farrell then turned to the issue of whether the Corrections Department had violated the 2019 injunction while the case was still pending.
The department, Farrell concluded, had “violated this order in multiple ways,” in part by amending its own policies in 2022 — long after the inmates had sued.
“The injunction had been in place for three years at the time DOC changed its policy in 2022,” Farrell noted. “This action shows DOC acted willfully in denying nude content despite the injunction. The DOC denied (one plaintiff’s) request for three editions of Playboy that had been approved under the prior policy.”
Because there were three separate magazines the inmate was denied, Farrell found there were three separate instances of contempt. In determining what sanctions to impose, the judge observed the court “does not consider jail as a real option …”
Adding there was no individual who could or should be jailed as a result of the “institutional” violations of the court’s order, Farrell imposed the maximum penalty.
He wrote that he considered awarding the $1,500 to the inmate who pursued the contempt action “so he could receive some remuneration for the unlawful denial of the publications he requested.” The law, however, stipulates the fines are punitive, Farrell noted, and are intended for “the benefit of the state” — the same entity that will be paying the fine.
The Corrections Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Last week, the inmates filed a motion for a new trial and an appeal of Farrell’s decision.
Editor’s note: Reporter Clark Kauffman worked for the Iowa Office of Ombudsman from October 2018 through November 2019. This article first appeared in the Iowa Capital Dispatch.
The penalty stems from a lawsuit that 13 prison inmates, then housed at the Anamosa State Penitentiary, filed against the Corrections Department in 2018. The inmates alleged the state was violating their constitutional rights by denying them access to magazines or other materials with nudity or sexually explicit content.
The lawsuit was triggered by the Iowa Legislature’s 2018 revision of the state law that restricts inmate access to adult content. After the revisions, the law barred any commercially published material that contained not only sexually explicit content but also nudity.
A judge in the case concluded the law and the department policies that sprang from it were potentially too broad and could infringe on the inmates’ First Amendment rights. The court issued an injunction that stated the department “shall not prevent the distribution of materials to (the plaintiffs) and other inmates similarly situated that features mere non-sexually explicit nudity.”
In 2022, with the injunction still in place, one of the plaintiffs sought to hold the Corrections Department in contempt of court, alleging it was violating the 2019 order by denying his request to purchase lingerie magazines. The inmate later testified he had filed a complaint with the Iowa Office of Ombudsman on the issue. Court exhibits show that in October 2020, the ombudsman’s office told the inmate it questioned the department’s “dubious interpretation and application of the court injunction” — indicating it had been put on notice that it was violating the court order.
At about that same time, another plaintiff complained the department had taken away his copy of Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue — a magazine that’s commonly available at grocery stores and other retailers.
During the trial, Dee Radeke, an inmate and prison librarian, testified that after the Legislature amended the law, a prison security director asked him to pull from circulation any pictures of pinup girls, graphic novels or novels containing strong sexual content such as “Shades of Grey.”
Corrections Department Executive Officer Rebecca Bowker testified that she followed the court’s order “to a T,” but also testified that she wasn’t sure if she had even seen the order. In addition, Bowker testified she believed the policy prohibited photos of women in thong bikinis on the grounds that their genitalia would not be “substantially” covered.
The inmates lost their case, with Polk County District Court Judge Jeffrey Farrell concluding they did not have a First Amendment right to possess materials containing nudity. Farrell then turned to the issue of whether the Corrections Department had violated the 2019 injunction while the case was still pending.
The department, Farrell concluded, had “violated this order in multiple ways,” in part by amending its own policies in 2022 — long after the inmates had sued.
“The injunction had been in place for three years at the time DOC changed its policy in 2022,” Farrell noted. “This action shows DOC acted willfully in denying nude content despite the injunction. The DOC denied (one plaintiff’s) request for three editions of Playboy that had been approved under the prior policy.”
Because there were three separate magazines the inmate was denied, Farrell found there were three separate instances of contempt. In determining what sanctions to impose, the judge observed the court “does not consider jail as a real option …”
Adding there was no individual who could or should be jailed as a result of the “institutional” violations of the court’s order, Farrell imposed the maximum penalty.
He wrote that he considered awarding the $1,500 to the inmate who pursued the contempt action “so he could receive some remuneration for the unlawful denial of the publications he requested.” The law, however, stipulates the fines are punitive, Farrell noted, and are intended for “the benefit of the state” — the same entity that will be paying the fine.
The Corrections Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Last week, the inmates filed a motion for a new trial and an appeal of Farrell’s decision.
Editor’s note: Reporter Clark Kauffman worked for the Iowa Office of Ombudsman from October 2018 through November 2019. This article first appeared in the Iowa Capital Dispatch.
