Share This Article
The Baxter County Quorum Court approved payment of more than $100,000 Tuesday to cover legal fees stemming from a federal lawsuit over the county jail’s mail policy, but not without heated debate from Justices of the Peace concerned about the burden on taxpayers.
The court voted 9-2 to appropriate $102,757.24 from the Jail Maintenance and Operations Fund to cover costs exceeding the county’s insurance coverage after losing an eight-year legal battle against the Human Rights Defense Center (HRDC).
The dispute began after the jail implemented a “postcard-only” policy in January 2012, restricting all non-legal mail to postcard size. Between 2016 and 2017, HRDC attempted to send various publications to inmates, including its monthly magazine “Prison Legal News,” a book called “The Habeas Citebook,” and other informational materials.
These items were rejected and returned marked “Refused” or “Return to Sender Post Cards Only.”
Sheriff John Montgomery defended the policy during the meeting, explaining it was intended to prevent contraband and reduce maintenance issues.
“There were several reasons for doing that. One the Contraband. It reduced the Contraband coming into the jail. It was faster for the jail staff to be able to process that mail and get it to the inmates. Plus, it reduced the amount of paper that goes into those cells. The inmates are notorious for using that paper to clog toilets, cause flooding issues, etc.,” Montgomery told the court.
The sheriff explained that the jail had operated for five years without issues before being targeted by the Florida-based organization.
“We rocked along for about five years. Never had a single complaint that came to me. A group out of Florida sent a box of unsolicited books, and we returned them, and they ultimately sued us for violating their First Amendment rights. For eight years. This is drug on,” Montgomery said.
The sheriff expressed frustration with the lawsuit’s outcome, noting that, “We had first trial in Fayetteville that lasted a week. We won that battle.” However, the case was sent to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately decided against the county.
“We had another week-long trial in which the judge did a complete 180 degree turn, he had federal judge ruled in our favor, took the exact same facts, and on the second trial reversed it, so we appealed it back to the eighth circuit and the eighth circuit sided with the judge. So, at the end of the day, we lose,” Montgomery explained.
According to court documents, a key finding in both the district and appeals court opinions was the arbitrary manner in which the jail implemented its mail policy. Lieutenant Sebastian Dennis, the acting jail administrator, testified that the sheriff and jail management exercised “subjective personal discretion” about what mail inmates could receive, with rules changing “on a whim” from day to day depending on the sheriff’s judgment.
“Under these facts, with an onerous burden on the free speech right and little burden on the Jail to provide the requested accommodation, the district court did not err in concluding the Jail’s policy is not reasonably related to its legitimate objectives,” wrote Circuit Judge Jonathan Grasz in the court’s 11-page opinion.
Justice of the Peace Dirk Waldrop voiced strong opposition to paying the legal fees, beginning his argument by quoting the Declaration of Independence and arguing that taxpayers shouldn’t bear the burden of what he viewed as an unfair judgment.
“These men, and I’m not advocating to overthrow the government. So, don’t take this out of context, but they said ‘when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security,’” Waldrop said.
During his speech, Waldrop said the lawsuit was ridiculous, stating that whether or not the Sheriff made a mistake, the taxpayer should not be burdened with having to cover the cost of the lawsuit.
Waldrop then specifically criticized the Florida-based organization that initiated the lawsuit.
“This group, Freedom Defense, whatever out of Florida (HRDC). You understand that they are like that freedom from religion group out of Wisconsin. This is what they do. Baxter County is not the only county, there are several counties in Arkansas and the other 49 states, along with the federal government. This is what these people do.”
“Where does this end? Where does it stop? Until somebody says, no, that’s ridiculous? That’s my money. And that’s your money,” Waldrop added, before declaring he would vote against the payment even if it meant being held in contempt of court.
Justice of the Peace Eddie Griffin, who also serves as Mountain Home’s Police Chief, expressed sympathy for Waldrop’s position but explained his vote to approve payment.
“I appreciate your thoughts and Dirk, and I think you and I see eye to eye on those things. But my life is based on following the law, listening to courts and following the judges… It doesn’t mean I like it. It doesn’t mean that I agree with the judge, but we have a system set up,” Griffin said.
Griffin added, “I’ve been in the jail many, many times. And I do not think the Sheriff, the Sheriff’s department, or anybody with the county did one single thing wrong at all. I absolutely disagree with the federal judge’s decision. But I will say, as a police officer for 28 years, there’s been a lot of things that have happened in the courts that I wasn’t really popped up about – but my life is based on following the law, listening to the courts and following the judges. So, I will vote for this. Doesn’t mean I like it.”
Justice of the Peace Lisa House reminded the court that such legal challenges are unfortunately common for local governments.
“The bad thing, Dirk. As much as I agree with you on that, I don’t know. I’ve been in through four lawsuits with the school board, and as much as we hated to go with it, it’s going to cost more down the road, a lot more. And yes, we would love to stop and revolt, but we’re kind of stuck in a corner,” House said.
County Prosecuting Attorney David Ethredge explained the potential consequences of refusing to pay the court-ordered judgment.
“If we don’t pay the full amount, it’s going to accrue interest, whatever the interest rates set out. That judgment is, I have no idea, but if it’s occurring interest, it’s somewhere between seven and ten percent… The federal judge can issue orders to seize property… it is a valid judgment, whether we like it or not, because a federal district judge says it’s a valid judgment,” Ethredge cautioned.
The appeals court upheld a substantial $259,350 attorney fee award to HRDC, rejecting Baxter County’s claims that the award was inappropriate because HRDC received only nominal damages. The panel noted HRDC also secured a permanent injunction, which represented “not technical or partial but a full vindication of its central claim.”
Montgomery noted the jail still has approximately $1.3-1.4 million in its maintenance fund, so the payment won’t affect operations in the immediate future.
“Other side because we lost that case. We have to pay their attorney’s fees. They submitted, I’m just going to use round numbers, about $550,000 in attorney’s fees. We said those fees were excessive, and the courts agreed, and they knocked $100,000 off of that. One attorney had actually billed at $1,000 an hour, is what they had submitted,” Montgomery explained.
According to the sheriff, the county owed the group’s attorneys $450,000. The county’s insurance through the Arkansas Association of Counties Risk Management Fund covered $350,000, leaving the $102,000 shortfall that required court approval.
“It’s not insurance to make that clear. It’s a risk management pool, and so all 75 counties belong to that risk management pool. And Association counties hired the lawyers, so we didn’t have to pay for our lawyers because Association accountants did,” Montgomery clarified later in the meeting.
Despite the financial setback, Montgomery remained adamant about the jail’s management approach.
“We run a no frills jail, and I don’t make any apologies for that. As you’ve heard me say before, we have no television, there’s no tablets, there’s no video games. They get the same meal for 365 days. And I believe it’s because we hold them accountable. And as a result, this morning we had 98 open beds, and we’re one of only two or three jails in the entire state of Arkansas that has open beds, and I believe it’s because we hold them accountable, and we don’t run a Holiday Inn.”
The case has prompted officials to review and update the jail’s mail policies to comply with the court ruling while maintaining security measures. Sheriff Montgomery indicated that while some adjustments were made, the jail would continue to prioritize security and accountability.
“The original mail policy postcard-only was prepared by an attorney. We went for five years with no issue. We are now revamping it, and we certainly will have an attorney look it over again to make sure that hopefully we don’t have this issue happen again,” Montgomery said.
The ruling by the 8th Circuit emphasized that its decision doesn’t mean all postcard-only mail policies are unconstitutional. Rather, it highlighted the fact-intensive nature of these cases, explaining that “different jails with different facts can result in different outcomes.”
In the decision issued February 24, 2025, the court distinguished this case from prior decisions where similar policies were upheld, noting that in those instances, inmates had alternative means to access publications, such as electronic tablets or kiosks, which were not available at the Baxter County jail.
Paul Wright, Executive Director of the Human Rights Defense Center, had previously called the ruling a significant victory for press freedom and prisoners’ rights.
“The constitutional free speech rights of the news media have been vindicated and now prisoners can read publications in the jail,” Wright said in an earlier statement. “This ruling affirms that publishers have a right to communicate with incarcerated individuals and that correctional facilities cannot impose arbitrary restrictions that effectively create a total ban on educational and legal materials.”
