Smith v. Department of Corrections

“Policies that merely ‘undertake to explain the necessary requirements of [DOC’s] existing rules’ are not ‘rules’ as defined by ORS 183.310(9).” Smith v. TRCI, 259 Or App 11, 17 (2013).

Petitioner challenged the validity of two Department of Corrections (“DOC”) policies that describe guidelines and procedures for searching inmates’ dreadlocks and Native American medicine bags. On review, Petitioner argued the dreadlocks policy was adopted without complying with applicable rule making procedures because the “religious sincerity test” is to be conducted by the prison chaplain without any formal delegation. Petitioner also argued that the policy for searching Native American bags expands the DOC’s rules governing searches. “Policies that merely ‘undertake to explain the necessary requirements of [DOC’s] existing rules’ are not ‘rules’ as defined by ORS 183.310(9).” Smith v. TRCI, 259 Or App 11, 17 (2013). The Court held that both policies support requirements of already-existing DOC rules, therefore these policies are not rules, but rather administrative policies. Thus, the Court of Appeals lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Administrative rules held valid; petition for judicial review dismissed.