Whether the Bureau of Prisons' broad construction of Prohibited Act Code 203 to punish statements in outgoing mail that are not true threats violates the First Amendment and Due Process rights of prisoners

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ON REVIEW This case involves the scope of constitutional First Amendment and Due Process protections for prisoners’ speech in outgoing mail, arising in the context of Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Prohibited Act Code 203, which punishes inmates for “[t]hreatening another with bodily harm or any other offense.” The BOP’s broad construction of that rule to apply to statements in outgoing mail that are not true threats presents two alternative questions for review: L As construed to apply to statements in outgoing mail that are not true threats, is Prohibited Act Code 203 crafted so that its “limitation of First Amendment freedoms [is] no greater than is necessary or essential to the protection of the particular governmental interest involved” within the meaning of Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974)? Il. In the alternative, does the BOP’s expansive construction of Prohibited Act Code 203 render the provision unconstitutionally void for vagueness by inviting arbitrary enforcement of its provisions and by failing to provide adequate notice to prisoners of the prohibited conduct? i