Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to TV. Every federal circuit to consider the question has held that television is a privilege correctional facilities can offer, restrict, or withhold entirely, and no provision of the Constitution requires them to provide it. That holds true for convicted prisoners and for people awaiting trial.
What the Courts Have Said
The clearest statement comes from the Seventh Circuit in Murphy v. Walker, 51 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 1995). Richard Murphy, a pretrial detainee in Illinois, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 arguing, among other things, that being denied television access violated his constitutional rights. The Seventh Circuit found “no support in the case law” for that claim and dismissed it, citing its own earlier statement in James v. Milwaukee County that a prisoner denied a television set “has not set out a deprivation” of constitutional rights.
Other circuits have said the same thing, sometimes bluntly. The Fifth Circuit in Montana v. Commissioners Court, 659 F.2d 19 (5th Cir. 1981), called claims about radio and television access “frivolous” and said they “do not pertain to federal constitutional rights.” The Eighth Circuit in More v. Farrier, 984 F.2d 269 (8th Cir. 1993), acknowledged television’s role in modern life but still held that inmates have “no fundamental right to in-cell cable television.” The Sixth Circuit reached the same result in Dede v. Baker. There is no circuit split, and no sign one is coming.
Why the Constitutional Arguments Fail
Eighth Amendment
The most common framing is that going without television is cruel and unusual punishment. Some Eighth Amendment prison-conditions claims have succeeded over the years, establishing that facilities must provide humane conditions including adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.1Federal Judicial Center. Eighth Amendment Prison Litigation2Ninth Circuit Jury Instructions. 9.31 Particular Rights – Eighth Amendment – Convicted Prisoners Claim re Conditions of Confinement/Medical Care But the Supreme Court in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994), held that a condition crosses the constitutional line only when it denies “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.”3Cornell Law School. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) The Constitution “does not mandate comfortable prisons,” only humane ones. Television is not a necessity, and no court has found that boredom or lack of entertainment on its own violates the Eighth Amendment.
First Amendment
The other angle is the First Amendment right to receive information. Inmates retain some First Amendment protections, and courts do examine restrictions on mail and publications.4Constitution Annotated. First Amendment – Religion and Expression – Prisoners Rights The problem for a TV claim is that the Supreme Court has already upheld far more restrictive information bans. In Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006), the Court allowed a Pennsylvania policy denying newspapers, magazines, and photographs to a category of dangerous inmates.5Justia Law. Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006) If the state can constitutionally cut off print, the case for a right to television is weaker still. Courts have consistently held that as long as some alternative information source exists, a TV ban does not violate the First Amendment.
The Turner Test
Nearly every prisoner rights challenge is decided under the four-factor test from Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), which asks whether a regulation has a rational connection to a legitimate interest, whether inmates have alternative ways to exercise the right, what accommodating the right would cost the facility, and whether an obvious less-restrictive alternative exists.6Justia Law. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) Television restrictions clear that test easily. Controlling electronics is rationally tied to security, inmates typically have other ways to get information, providing televisions costs money, and there is no obvious cheaper alternative a court could point to. Turner is the reason television challenges lose regardless of which amendment is invoked.
Pretrial Detainees Are Not Treated Differently
People sometimes assume that pretrial detainees, who have not been convicted of anything, must have stronger claims to amenities than sentenced prisoners. The legal test is different, but the outcome is the same. Because pretrial detainees have not been convicted, their conditions are evaluated under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court held in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979), that the question is whether a condition amounts to punishment before a finding of guilt. A restriction reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose, and not excessive in relation to that purpose, is not punishment. Denying television clears that standard for the same institutional reasons that satisfy Turner. That is why Murphy lost even though he had not been convicted.
What Federal Law Actually Says About TVs in Prisons
Congress has not just left the question to the courts. Federal appropriations riders, often referred to together as the Zimmer Amendment, prohibit the Bureau of Prisons from spending federal funds on certain inmate amenities.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 4042 – Duties of Bureau of Prisons The prohibited list includes:
- In-cell television viewing, with a narrow exception for inmates segregated from the general population for their own safety
- R-rated, X-rated, and NC-17-rated movies in any medium
- Martial arts training equipment
- In-cell coffee pots and heating elements
- Electric and electronic musical instruments
An earlier 1990 provision directed the Bureau of Prisons to cut construction spending on amenities, specifically naming color televisions and pool tables.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 4042 – Duties of Bureau of Prisons In practice, federal inmates watch television in common areas like dayrooms on sets the facility owns and maintains. The federal commissary does not sell portable televisions or most electrical appliances, so inmates cannot buy their own.8Federal Bureau of Prisons. Trust Fund/Deposit Fund Manual (Program Statement 4500.12)
State systems vary. Some let inmates purchase small clear-housing televisions through the commissary using personal funds; others confine viewing to shared areas. The rules depend on the state department of corrections and often on the facility’s security level.
Why Suing Over It Almost Never Works
Even if a prisoner believed a TV claim had merit, procedure would likely end it before a judge looked at the substance. The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires any prisoner challenging conditions of confinement to exhaust every available administrative remedy before filing in federal court.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 1997e – Suits by Prisoners Miss a grievance step and the case is dismissed.
The PLRA also bars prisoners from recovering damages for “mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury.”9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 1997e – Suits by Prisoners The harm from not having a television is psychological, so this provision wipes out any monetary recovery even in the hypothetical case that survives on the merits. Courts can also dismiss prisoner suits on their own initiative when the claim is frivolous or fails to state a viable claim, and television deprivation cases are exactly the kind that get filtered out at that early stage.
Between the substantive rulings, the Turner framework, the federal restrictions on amenity spending, and the procedural filters of the PLRA, the question of whether prisoners have a constitutional right to TV is about as settled as prison law gets. The answer is no, and the legal architecture makes it unlikely to change.