Law360 (July 9, 2026, 2:24 PM EDT) -- A Georgia federal judge freed a Georgia sheriff and jail commander from a local bookstore's suit alleging they imposed an unconstitutional policy of only allowing books into the county jail from certain authorized retailers, finding that the rule was rationally tied to jail security concerns.

In an order Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Tiffany Johnson granted Gwinnett County Sheriff Keybo Taylor and Gwinnett County Jail commander Benjamin Haynes' motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit filed against them by Athens, Georgia-based Avid Bookshop.

Avid said in its March 2024 lawsuit that Taylor and Haynes imposed an unlawful policy of only allowing books from "authorized retailers" into the jail, alleging that the policy was arbitrary, vague, subjective and in violation of the shop's First Amendment right to communicate with jail inmates.

Taylor and Haynes pushed back against those allegations, arguing in an April hearing that the policy was narrowly tailored to prevent contraband and secretive communications from entering the jail while still allowing in books from Amazon, Barnes & Noble and five major publishing houses.

Judge Johnson sided with the sheriff and jail commander Wednesday.

While Avid does have a protected First Amendment interest in mailing books to prisoners, the judge said "that right is not without qualification" because jail regulations affecting constitutional rights are valid as long as they are reasonably related to "legitimate penological interests." In this case, Judge Johnson found that "a rational connection exists between excluding shipments from local bookstores and furthering safety and security at the jail."

Major John Gardner, who manages the incoming mail at the jail, shared with the court that books have been used as a way of sneaking in "strips" coated in "'intoxicating chemical substances'" into the jail, Judge Johnson said. Gardner also noted that while the jail has a machine capable of detecting when paper has been tampered with, that machine does not have the ability to scan large amounts of stacked paper of the sort found in a "'bound paperback book,'" the judge said.

Both Gardner and Taylor told the court it is more likely that someone who has "direct contact" with an inmate might "touch or otherwise tamper with" a book than it is for someone working for an e-commerce retailer or publisher who has no "direct connection or knowledge of" the inmate receiving a book to do so.

"Thus, by allowing shipments only from 'a few, well-known' retailers, the new policy promotes security concerns by 'limiting the risk that contraband (primarily drugs, weapons and pornography) will enter the jail,'" Judge Johnson said.

The judge shot down Avid's argument that an exemption under which religious organizations can send inmates religious printed material made the policy too arbitrary, finding it was intended to allow inmates to practice their religion as protected under the First Amendment and did not render the policy "any less rationally related to a legitimate penological interest."

Judge Johnson noted that there is also an "alternative means" under which Avid could exercise its right to mail inmates books under the policy, highlighting that the shop could place orders shipped directly from the approved retailers. While Avid might view that option as "'antithetical' to its business model as [a] small bookstore," the judge said the jail isn't required to provide an "ideal" alternative as long as there is "'some other way'" for the shop to exercise its right.

Avid first challenged the jail's policy as unconstitutionally vague because it failed to define the terms "publisher" and "authorized retailer," but Judge Johnson said that policy was replaced with one that "explicitly defines" those terms in September 2025. As such, the unconstitutional vagueness claim is moot, she said.

Representatives for the parties did not respond immediately to requests for comment Thursday.

Avid Bookshop is represented by Clare R. Norins and Christina Lee of the University of Georgia School of Law's First Amendment Clinic and Zack Greenamyre of Mitchell Shapiro Greenamyre & Funt LLP.

Haynes and Taylor are represented by R. David Ware, Russell A. Britt, Pearson K. Cunningham and M. Blake Walker of Hall Booth Smith PC and Jonathan J. Kandel and Rachel Sinclair of Gwinnett County Law Department.

The case is Avid Bookshop LLC v. Taylor et al., case number 1:24-cv-01135, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

--Editing by Patrick Reagan.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.