In Antenor v. State, Department of Corrections, the supreme court held that denying an inmate access to a computer programing book based on security reasons did not violate the Alaska Constitution’s free speech provision or the constitutional right to reformation. In 2017, inmate Antenor attempted to order a computer programming book in order to further self-study after taking an electronics class in prison. Department of Corrections (DOC) officials refused to accept the delivery of the book, stating that programming books were not allowed for security reasons. Antenor submitted a request for interview (RFI) challenging the rejection of the book and stating that a blanket ban on education books violates the Cleary consent decree. This RFI and a subsequent grievance were denied. Antenor then filed a motion to enforce the Cleary Final Settlement Agreement, alleging that the prison had implemented an “unwritten” standard operating procedure banning any computer based educational literature, which he argued constituted a content-based restriction on speech which also burdens a prisoner’s right to rehabilitation. The superior court denied Antenor’s motion to enforce. On appeal, the supreme court held that four factors are relevant to evaluating the reasonableness of a prison policy in regards to free speech claims: there must be a valid, rational connection between the regulation and the justifying legitimate governmental interest, courts must consider the existence of alternative means of exercising the right, courts must assess the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and while the absence of ready alternatives is evidence of the reasonableness of a regulation, the existence of alternatives can indicate that the regulation is an exaggerated response to prison concerns. Based on these factors, the court concluded that denying Antenor access to the computer programing book did not violate the Alaska Constitution’s free speech provision. The supreme court also held that because he was not being denied all rehabilitative opportunities, or even all rehabilitative opportunities in his area of interesting, denying him access to one specific book did not violate his constitutional right to reformation. Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that DOC’s restrictions on programming-related books are rationally related to a legitimate interest, and therefore neither violate the Alaska Constitution’s free speech provision nor infringe on the right of rehabilitation.