Athens, Georgia-based Avid Bookshop sued Gwinnett County Sheriff Keybo Taylor and Gwinnett County Jail commander Benjamin Haynes in March, alleging the policy they instituted violated the shop's First Amendment right to communicate with inmates, is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the 14th Amendment and constitutes an unconstitutional permitting scheme.
Taylor and Haynes argued in June that they were entitled to qualified immunity from Avid's claims and that the policy falls in line and is, in some cases, less restrictive than prison regulations that have been upheld by courts in other parts of the country.
U.S. District Judge Mark Cohen on Tuesday agreed that the men were entitled to immunity and freed them from the First Amendment and 14th Amendment claims levied against them in their individual capacities after finding Avid failed to "sufficiently allege" its constitutional right under the First Amendment was clearly established when the policy was instituted.
According to the judge's order, Avid's First Amendment claim relies on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1987 Turner v. Safley
decision, in which the justices held that prison regulations impinging constitutional rights are only valid if they are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. And while both sides have their own arguments about whether the policy is reasonable under Turner, the judge said more information is needed to make that determination."Defendants' argument that the brick-and-mortar exclusion is reasonably related to the legitimate penological interest of preventing contraband smuggling 'is too vague to permit meaningful application of the Turner test, especially at [the motion to dismiss] stage of the litigation,'" the judge said. "The parties will instead need to develop a record before the court can engage in the proper Turner inquiry."
And because it isn't obvious whether the policy is reasonable under Turner, Judge Cohen said it follows that it would not have been obvious to Taylor and Haynes that imposing the policy could potentially violate Avid's rights under the law.
Likewise, the judge said Avid's unconstitutional vagueness claim against Taylor and Haynes in their individual capacities cannot stand because the men "could have reasonably believed they met the required minimal standards of specificity by publishing a written policy and providing additional information when requested."
Judge Cohen allowed the two claims to continue against Taylor and Haynes in their official capacities, however, saying Avid sufficiently pleaded that the book policy was unconstitutionally vague because it doesn't tell vendors how to obtain approval to ship books to the jail.
Taylor and Haynes had argued in their motion to dismiss that the policy was not too vague because people of "ordinary intelligence" understand the meaning of the word "authorized" in the context of the policy. However, Judge Cohen said the meaning of the word "authorized" is not the key question.
The key question, the judge said, is whether the policy provided "fair warning" to vendors about what it required of them. And here, he said Avid "had no fair warning of how to become an approved vendor."
"It was only after repeated rejections and inquiries that Avid was able to ascertain how the policy was being applied," Judge Cohen said. "Therefore, Avid sufficiently alleges that the policy does not provide fair notice of what the policy requires."
Judge Cohen also dismissed Avid's claims that the policy constitutes an unconstitutional permitting scheme and a prior restraint on expression, saying the shop didn't do enough to show having a preapproval requirement for vendors was unreasonable under the Turner standard.
Counsel for the parties did not respond immediately to requests for comment on Wednesday.
Avid Bookshop is represented by Clare R. Norins of the University of Georgia School of Law's First Amendment Clinic and Zack Greenamyre of Mitchell Shapiro Greenamyre & Funt LLP.
Haynes and Taylor are represented by R. David Ware, Russell A. Britt, Pearson K. Cunningham and M. Blake Walker of Hall Booth Smith PC.
The case is Avid Bookshop LLC v. Taylor et al., case number 1:24-cv-01135, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
--Editing by Jay Jackson Jr.
Correction: A previous version of this article misspelled a case citation. The error has been corrected.