Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), was the U.S. Supreme Court case that established the legal standards that correctional facilities must meet concerning offender management policies, specifically the policies that restrict the First Amendment rights of prisoners. In Turner v. Safley, the correctional facilities were afforded the legal right to restrict the constitutional liberties of offenders when those liberties interfere with the safety and security of the institution. In other words, if a correctional institution can establish a legitimate penological reason for enacting a restrictive policy, then the policy is perfectly constitutional inside a correctional setting.
This standard leaves plenty of room for offenders to continually challenge institutional policies and legislative acts, such as when an offender challenged the Ensign Amendment in Jordan v. Sosa (2008). Upon judicial review, such as in Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006), restrictive prison policies are often upheld. Other times, although these policies may have previously withstood judicial scrutiny, their continued use is no longer considered to be legally viable. A recent example of one such Supreme Court decision is Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015), wherein the Court deemed that the correctional practice in question no longer satisfied the Turner test. As such, the correctional agency was required to alter its practice to satisfy constitutional requirements.
Referencing at least 2 credible sources and using proper American Psychological Association (APA) formatting and guidelines, submit a 3–4-page paper that examines the conflict between the needs of correctional facilities to maintain the safety and security of their institutions and the needs of offenders to maintain their personal liberties.