Prisoner Rights Group Challenges Minnesota's Book Vendor Policy in Federal Court

The Human Rights Defense Center sued Minnesota DOC over rules limiting which publishers can send books to prisoners. The state says the policy blocks drug smuggling through book pages.

Nonprofit publisher and DOC clash over approved-vendor list in Minneapolis federal court

A national prisoner rights organization faced off with the Minnesota Department of Corrections in a Minneapolis federal courtroom Friday over a policy restricting which publishers may send books to incarcerated individuals, Courthouse News Service reports.

The Human Rights Defense Center, a nonprofit publisher and advocacy group, sought a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the rules while litigation continues. The center argues the approved-vendor policy amounts to unconstitutional government censorship, violating its First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to deliver protected materials to prisoners.

Drugs in book pages

Corrections officials say the policy is a direct response to a documented rise in synthetic drug smuggling through books sent into state facilities.

"Incarcerated people were overdosing, and some people died," said Edwin Stockmeyer, the department's attorney. "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 policy, adopted in October 2024, Minnesota correctional facilities initially accepted materials only from three pre-approved publishers — Hamilton Books, HarperCollins and Penguin Random House. A March 2025 update expanded the list to six approved corporate vendors and five pre-approved nonprofits, while adding a new application process for publishers seeking approved status. The Human Rights Defense Center was not included on either list.

HRDC excluded despite three decades of operation

The center 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. Four of its titles were rejected and returned by Minnesota corrections officials under the disputed policy. Those publications cover prisoners' constitutional rights related to medical care, higher education and habeas corpus relief.

U.S. District Judge John Tunheim, a Bill Clinton appointee, pressed the department on why any established book publisher would fail to qualify, particularly one operating for over 30 years.

Stockmeyer emphasized that fulfillment logistics matter significantly. Publishers whose distribution processes are indirect or insufficiently controlled, he argued, leave open the possibility of 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."

Center disputes drug-smuggling rationale

Matthew Gillespie, HRDC's attorney, said the center has operated direct fulfillment for more than 30 years and questioned whether the policy meaningfully addresses the stated security concern.

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

Judge Tunheim pushed back when Gillespie appeared to minimize the drug-smuggling rationale, asking whether reducing drugs smuggled into prisons is a legitimate corrections goal. Gillespie acknowledged it is, but maintained the approved-vendor rules do little to achieve it.

Stockmeyer countered that books have become a common vehicle for introducing synthetic drugs into facilities, and that the challenge persists as drug formulations continue to change.

Lawsuit names commissioner and all 11 state facilities

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

The center alleges the department created the approved-vendor application process in February only after HRDC initiated litigation, a move Gillespie described as a belated and deliberately burdensome response. Under the current process, applications are reviewed only once per quarter, and applicants must disclose every instance in which their materials have been censored.

"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."

Corrections currently offers three authorized pathways for incarcerated individuals to receive books: purchasing print copies from the six approved corporate vendors, receiving print donations from the five pre-approved nonprofits, or using physical prison library services.

The center argues none of those channels address its specific role as a publisher of legal rights materials for prisoners, and that corrections never gave unapproved vendors a meaningful opportunity to seek inclusion before the policy took effect.

"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 stated in its complaint.

Judge Tunheim did not issue a ruling from the bench. A decision on the preliminary injunction is pending.

Source: Courthouse News Service