Whether a court may consider a narrow alternative that would apply only to the individual plaintiff under Turner v. Safley

QUESTION PRESENTED In Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987), this Court held that “when a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Under Turner, “the existence of obvious, easy alternatives” to a challenged prison policy “may be evidence that the regulation is not reasonable.” Id. at 90. In particular, if a plaintiff “can point to an alternative that fully accommodates the prisoner’s rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interest[s],” the challenged regulation may fail to satisfy the reasonable relationship standard. Id. at 91. The question presented is: Whether, under Turner, a court may only consider proposed alternatives to a challenged policy that would apply on a prison-wide scale, or whether a court may also consider a more narrow alternative that would need only apply to the individual plaintiff. (D