Prisoner rights group fights Minnesota's ‘approved vendor’ book restrictions in court

MINNEAPOLIS (CN) — A national prisoner rights organization squared off with the Minnesota Department of Corrections in federal court Friday over whether the state can legally limit which publishers can send books to incarcerated individuals.

The Human Rights Defense Center, a nonprofit publisher and advocacy group that describes itself as the “foremost advocate” for prisoners’ free speech rights, argued that Minnesota’s restrictions censor critical resources as it sought a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the policies during the litigation.

The center claims the policies are unrelated to any legitimate interest and instead amount to the government “picking and choosing” which speech to allow, in violation of its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to provide protected materials to incarcerated people.

Corrections officials maintain the restrictions on approved book vendors are aimed at keeping drugs out of prisons, arguing that synthetic substances have been smuggled into facilities through book pages.

“Incarcerated people were overdosing, and some people died,” the department’s attorney, Edwin Stockmeyer, said. “The department of corrections had to do something… the department needs to be satisfied that you are legitimately a book vendor and your books will not be used to smuggle drugs into a facility.”

Under the disputed policy, Minnesota correctional facilities no longer accept reading materials from unapproved publishers, instead providing a list of six pre-approved vendors, such as Hamilton Books and HarperCollins, and implementing a new, scrutinized application process.

HRDC, which says it has distributed publications to prisoners in more than 3,000 correctional facilities nationwide, including death row and supermax units in all 50 states, was not included on the approved list.

The center identifies four of its books that corrections officials rejected and returned under the policy. The publications address prisoners’ constitutional rights related to medical care, higher education and habeas corpus relief.

U.S. District Judge John Tunheim, a Bill Clinton appointee, questioned why any entity in the business of publishing books wouldn’t be pre-approved, especially one that has operated in the business for over 30 years.

Stockmeyer said the fulfillment process matters a lot, noting publishers with improper or non-direct fulfillment processes leave the door open to drug smuggling.

“The department of corrections is not out here trying to exclude books from these facilities,” Stockmeyer said. “They want to be able to gather a useful amount of information that your books aren’t going to be used to smuggle drugs into these facilities.”

Matthew Gillespie, HRDC’s attorney, said the center has used direct fulfillment for over 30 years, and downplayed the implication that safety concerns were the reason behind the ban — though Tunheim pushed back.

“Ultimately, the goal of reducing drugs being smuggled into a prison is an appropriate goal of the corrections department, correct?” the judge asked Gillespie, who said the center is not contesting that point, but believes these policies do little to accomplish the goal of reducing drug smuggling.

“Defendants offer no meaningful evidence that reversing this policy that is only two years old would negatively impact prisons and prisoners,” he said. “These are policies in search of a penological interest.”

Stockmeyer said the center’s argument overlooks the fact that books have become a common vehicle for smuggling synthetic drugs into prisons, a challenge corrections officials continue to face as drug formulations evolve.

HRDC filed the suit earlier this year against the department, the state, all 11 state correctional facilities, Corrections Commissioner Paul Schnell — who has led the department for seven years and serves as its final policymaker — and other officials.

The department adopted the approved-vendor policy in October 2024, initially allowing only three publishers — Hamilton Books, HarperCollins and Penguin Random House — to send materials to prisoners.

Updated in March 2025, the policy shifted from an outright ban on books from unapproved vendors to a multi-tiered policy that expanded the vendor and donor list, but still excluded HRDC.

Corrections provides three authorized ways for an incarcerated person to receive books: purchasing print copies from the six approved corporate vendors, receiving print donations from five specific pre-approved nonprofits or using the physical prison library services.

HRDC claims corrections did not give other book vendors the opportunity to obtain approved status, and did not inform the public of the process it used to approve vendors.

“The policy itself violates the First Amendment,” Gillespie said in court. “HRDC does not need to apply to exercise its First Amendment rights. The policy itself would impose an undue burden on HRDC.”

The center did attempt to send materials to incarcerated Minnesotans after the policy went out, but had most items returned, marked “unauthorized vendor.”

“Such restrictions on written speech sent to people incarcerated at MNDOC facilities are not rationally related to any legitimate penological interest and violate HRDC’s First Amendment right to communicate protected speech to incarcerated people,” the center said in its complaint.

In February, the department created an application process for publishers seeking “approved vendor” status, a move HRDC believes was made in response to its litigation.

The center argues the process is deliberately burdensome, noting that applications are reviewed only once per quarter, applicants must disclose every instance in which their materials have been censored by another prison and inmates have no way to independently appeal a rejected book.

Gillespie also noted that the publishers already on the approved-vendor list were not required to undergo the same “arbitrary” process that corrections now imposes on HRDC and other nonprofit publishers.

“The policy wouldn’t work if applied evenly,” he said. “There would be no approved vendors at all, and that cannot be what the First Amendment intended.”

Corrections noted Friday three non-profits have applied for and been approved as a vendor this year.

HRDC has not applied to be an approved vendor through the new application process, which, according to corrections claims, is an available pathway for the organization.

Across the United States, state corrections departments have increasingly adopted approved vendor policies, justifying these procedures as necessary security measures to choke off the influx of contraband, such as drugs smuggled through paper or hidden in book spines.

HRDC has launched similar First Amendment battles against “restrictive” policies across the country, including in Colorado, Nebraska and California. While the Colorado case is pending, the center secured settlements in both Nebraska and individual county jail systems in California.

The Minnesota Department of Corrections did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.