If Tom's case makes its way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, what is the standard the Court will use to judge Tom's claims and which side will win - the prison policies or Tom?

Question

California has changed its sex offender law. It used to be after a sex offender finished his sentence, he could be committed to a mental hospital with a hearing held every 24 months to determine if he could be released because he no longer posed a danger to himself or others. The law is now changed and civil commitment is indefinite unless the offender can prove that something has changed, such as he has successfully completed treatment. In order to successfully complete treatment, one must admit that he's guilty. Tom entered an Alford plea where Tom did not admit guilt but admitted that the state had enough evidence to convict him should he go to trial, and Tom did not want to go to trial to spare his daughter from being forced to testify against him, but Tom says he's innocent. Because Tom proclaims his innocence, the prison will not allow his daughter to visit because Tom is an untreated sex offender, the prison says he is not a suitable candidate for treatment and he, therefore, can be held indefinitely under a civil commitment order. Tom brings a lawsuit to challenge his First Amendment right to freedom of association with his daughter and states that his due process rights are being violated because he's being punished for asserting his innocence.
What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

ANSWER: Answers may vary: The prison wins the case and can keep Tom's daughter from visiting. The standard of review is that prisons have the legal authority to enact rules and regulations for the safety and security of the prison population. If keeping an offender from a victim serves prison policy, it is legal, regardless of a prisoner's First Amendment claim.