Marriages of Inmates (Program Statement 5326.05)

By Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., and Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA

Field	Value
Program Statement	5326.05
Subject	Marriages of Inmates
Effective / current edition	09-22-2011
Change notices	None. BOP’s published Program Statement list carries 5326.05 with no change notice.
Supersedes	P5326.04, Marriages of Inmates (12/17/98), rescinded — PS 5326.05 at p. 2
Governing statute	The Program Statement cites none. The Bureau’s custody and placement authority is 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) and its general duties 18 U.S.C. § 4042. The constitutional source of the right is Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
28 C.F.R. anchor	Part 551, subpart B — “Marriages of Inmates,” §§ 551.10–551.16 (verified). The Program Statement says the same at p. 2: “Rules cited in this Program Statement are contained in 28 CFR §551.10-16.”
Related BP forms	None. PS 5326.05 prescribes no form, and BOP publishes no marriage-request form. The request goes to the unit team — in practice on a BP-A0148 Inmate Request to Staff (“cop-out”).
Official PDF	bop.gov/policy/progstat/5326_005.pdf

Checked against the BOP policy set · 2026-09-06.

Program Statement 5326.05 is a six-page document that tells Bureau of Prisons staff how to process a request to marry from someone in federal custody, and it is unusual among Program Statements: almost every operative sentence in it is a quotation from a binding regulation, 28 C.F.R. part 551, subpart B. The regulation’s structure is approval-unless — the Warden “shall approve” a request to marry except on specified grounds — but the decision is the Warden’s, it is made case by case, and nothing on this page can tell you how yours will come out.

If you are the person on the outside, our orientation guide is What Families Should Know About Federal Prison, and this page is the rule underneath it. Two practical points before the rule: nobody outside the institution files this request — the person inside does — and the marriage and the wedding are two separate decisions, made under two separate sections of the regulation.

The rule itself: marriage requests

Everything in this section is transcribed either from 28 C.F.R. part 551, subpart B on ecfr.gov (regulation — this binds the Bureau) or from the Bureau’s implementing instructions in PS 5326.05 (policy — the Bureau’s instruction to its own staff). PS 5326.05 distinguishes the two typographically on the printed page, and that distinction does not survive text extraction, so every boundary below was verified section by section against the codified text.

The default: approve, except

28 C.F.R. § 551.10 (regulation), quoted in full — it is three sentences:

The Warden shall approve an inmate’s request to marry except where a legal restriction to the marriage exists, or where the proposed marriage presents a threat to the security or good order of the institution, or to the protection of the public.

The Warden may approve the use of institution facilities for an inmate’s marriage ceremony. If a marriage ceremony poses a threat to the security or good order of the institution, the Warden may disapprove a marriage ceremony in the institution.

Read those three sentences together and the architecture is visible. The marriage is presumptively approved and may be denied only on three grounds. The ceremony inside the prison is discretionary from the start — “may approve.” Approval to marry is not approval to hold the wedding on the compound, and a denial of the second is not a denial of the first.

The Bureau’s stated program objective, PS 5326.05 at p. 1 (policy): “Inmate marriages will be requested, approved, and conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.”

Who decides, and how high the authority sits

28 C.F.R. § 551.11 (regulation):

(a) The Warden may approve the marriage of a federal inmate confined in a federal institution. This authority may not be delegated below the level of Acting Warden.

(b) The appropriate Community Corrections Manager may approve the request to marry of a federal inmate who is not confined in a federal institution (for example, a federal inmate who is in a community corrections center, in home confinement, in state custody, or in a local detention facility).

The non-delegation clause matters. A case manager, a unit manager, a captain and an associate warden may all participate in the review, and none of them may make the decision. If a denial comes back over a signature below Acting Warden, that is the first thing to say in a written challenge.

The same non-delegation rule attaches separately to the ceremony under § 551.16(a) (regulation): “The Warden may not delegate the authority to approve or to disapprove a marriage ceremony in the institution below the level of Acting Warden.”

The four conditions

28 C.F.R. § 551.12 (regulation), transcribed complete:

An inmate’s request to marry shall be approved provided:

(a) The inmate is legally eligible to marry; (b) The inmate is mentally competent; (c) The intended spouse has verified, ordinarily in writing, an intention to marry the inmate; and (d) The marriage poses no threat to institution security or good order, or to the protection of the public.

Four conditions, joined by “and.” All four must be satisfied. The codified rule ends there — everything the Program Statement adds after subsection (d) is implementing instruction to staff, not regulation. Two of those instructions matter enough to quote, PS 5326.05 at pp. 2–3 (policy):

For example, staff shall review closely the marriage request of all inmates housed in Medium, High, and Administrative Security Level institutions.

This scrutiny is to ensure the request is not made to circumvent existing Bureau visiting policy, thereby posing a threat to institution security or good order.

So the level of scrutiny is expressly tied to the security level of the institution, and the specific concern the Bureau names is a marriage entered into to obtain visiting privileges that the visiting regulations would not otherwise allow. That is the sub-text of most close questions under § 551.12(d), and anyone at a medium, high or administrative facility should expect the request to be examined with that in mind.

The application, the decision, the notice, the appeal

28 C.F.R. § 551.13 (regulation), transcribed complete — and note how short the codified text actually is:

(a) A federal inmate confined in a Bureau institution who wants to get married shall submit a request to marry to the inmate’s unit team. The unit team shall evaluate the request based on the criteria identified in § 551.12. A written report of the unit team’s findings, and its recommendation, shall be forwarded to the Warden for a final decision.

(b) The Warden shall notify the inmate in writing whether the inmate’s request to marry is approved or disapproved. A copy of this notification shall be placed in the inmate’s central file. When the Warden’s decision is to disapprove the inmate’s request, the notification to the inmate shall include a statement of reason(s) for that action. The Warden shall advise the inmate that the decision may be appealed through the Administrative Remedy Procedure.

(c) All expenses of the marriage (for example, a marriage license) shall be paid by the inmate, the inmate’s intended spouse, the inmate’s family, or other appropriate source approved by the Warden. The Warden may not permit appropriated funds to be used for an inmate marriage.

Three binding entitlements sit in subsection (b), and they are the reader’s leverage: a decision in writing, a statement of reasons if it is a denial, and notice of the right to appeal through the Administrative Remedy Program. A verbal “no” from a case manager is not a decision under § 551.13(b). A written denial with no reasons stated is an incomplete one.

Everything the Program Statement adds under its Section 8 — the numbered paragraphs (1) through (4) — is staff instruction rather than codified rule, and it is where the real documentation burden lives. PS 5326.05 at p. 3 (policy):

The unit team shall base its recommendation on the criteria found in Section 7. When relevant, a unit team representative may request information from the U.S. Probation Officer, the intended spouse’s family (for example, where there is a question about the age of the intended spouse), or other appropriate source(s).

(1) Information on the inmate’s legal eligibility to marry is determined through conversation with the inmate and by reviewing the Inmate Central File, including the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report.

Indication of a present or prior marriage, including a common-law marriage, requires written verification that the marriage is legally dissolved. The status of a common-law marriage, and its dissolution, are determined under the law of the state where the marriage occurred.

Questions on an inmate’s legal eligibility to marry shall be referred to the Regional Counsel.

(2) Information on an inmate’s mental competence may be obtained by reviewing mental health reports prepared on the inmate prior to and/or during the present period of confinement.

A mental competency examination should not be conducted specifically to determine the inmate’s mental competence to marry.

The instruction on mental competence is protective and often overlooked: staff are told to work from existing records and not to order a fresh competency evaluation for this purpose. On prior marriages, the instruction is strict — a present or prior marriage, “including a common-law marriage,” calls for written verification that the marriage is legally dissolved, evaluated under the law of the state where that marriage occurred. Gathering that document is the single most common source of delay, and it is a document only the outside world can obtain.

PS 5326.05 at p. 4 (policy) governs contact with the intended spouse, and it draws a hard line:

(3) A unit team representative should contact, and request a written statement from, the intended spouse to verify that party’s interest in marrying the inmate. If requested, the staff member may reveal public record information from the inmate’s file, but this contact shall not include a specific discussion of the inmate’s personal history, or suitability for marriage.

An intended spouse who requests this information shall be advised to discuss these issues with the inmate, or, if preferred, to write the Warden.

(4) The unit team shall assess whether the marriage poses a threat to institution security or good order, or to public protection. As part of their review, the unit team shall consult with the Captain for his or her assessment.

The Captain — the institution’s chief correctional officer — is a required consultation on the security question. That is where a security-based denial usually originates.

Documentation: what somebody actually has to produce

Neither the regulation nor the Program Statement contains a checklist, so this is assembled from the operative text above, with the source for each row.

What has to exist	Source	Who ordinarily produces it
A request to marry, submitted to the unit team	28 C.F.R. § 551.13(a) (regulation)	The person inside
A written statement from the intended spouse verifying the intention to marry — “ordinarily in writing” under the rule, and expressly requested by staff under the policy	28 C.F.R. § 551.12(c) (regulation); PS 5326.05 at p. 4 (policy)	The intended spouse
Written verification that any present or prior marriage — including a common-law marriage — is legally dissolved	PS 5326.05 at p. 3 (policy)	The person inside, or family on the outside; the certified record comes from the state where the marriage occurred
A written unit team report of findings and recommendation, forwarded to the Warden	28 C.F.R. § 551.13(a) (regulation)	Unit team
The Captain’s security assessment	PS 5326.05 at p. 4 (policy)	Captain
A referral to Regional Counsel on any question of legal eligibility	PS 5326.05 at p. 3 (policy)	Unit team
The Warden’s written decision, with a statement of reasons if disapproved, filed in the central file	28 C.F.R. § 551.13(b) (regulation)	Warden
The marriage license and every other expense	28 C.F.R. §§ 551.13(c), 551.16(b) (regulation)	The inmate, the intended spouse, the inmate’s family, or another source the Warden approves — never appropriated funds
Local requirements: “information on the local marriage laws and processing procedures (for example, marriage license requirements, blood tests)”	PS 5326.05 at p. 6 (policy) — the Institution Supplement	Each Warden, in the Institution Supplement

There is no time frame anywhere in PS 5326.05 or in 28 C.F.R. part 551, subpart B. No deadline for the unit team’s report, none for the Captain’s consultation, none for the Warden’s decision, none for the written notice. That absence is the single most consequential fact about this policy in practice, and it is why an undated request can sit. What the reader has instead of a deadline is the written-decision entitlement in § 551.13(b) and the administrative remedy ladder behind it.

Special circumstances: detainers, pretrial, and people not in a federal prison

28 C.F.R. § 551.14 (regulation), transcribed complete:

(a) Detainers and pending charges. Staff review of a marriage request from an inmate who has a detainer(s) and/or a pending charge(s) shall include an assessment of the legal effects of the marriage on these actions. For example, an inmate could request to marry a potential witness in litigation pending against that inmate. Approving this marriage could affect the status of this litigation.

(b) Pretrial inmates. A pretrial inmate may request permission to marry in accordance with the provisions of this rule. Staff shall contact the court, U.S. Attorney, and in the case of an alien, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, to advise of the marriage request of the pretrial inmate and to request their comments.

(c) Federal inmates not in Federal institutions. A federal inmate who is not confined in a federal institution who wants to get married shall submit a request to the appropriate Community Corrections Manager. Prior to making a decision on the inmate’s request, the Community Corrections Manager shall advise the confining authority of the inmate’s request and ask that information on the criteria identified in § 551.12 be furnished.

The witness example in subsection (a) is codified rule, not commentary. If the intended spouse is a witness in a pending case, expect that to be examined, and expect it to reach the U.S. Attorney’s office. The Program Statement adds a second example, PS 5326.05 at p. 4 (policy): “Another example might be an inmate with a deportation detainer who may request permission to marry to avoid deportation. When warranted, and prior to the unit team’s report being forwarded to the Warden, a unit team representative shall contact the U.S. Attorney, ICE, or other appropriate authorities for their comments.”

Two categories fall outside the policy altogether. PS 5326.05 at p. 2 (policy): “Procedures specified in this Program Statement apply to all Bureau holdover, pretrial, detainee, and designated inmates. U.S. Marshals’ holdovers and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) holdovers housed in Bureau custody shall be referred to those agencies for marriage consideration.” For everything else that changes when someone is held before trial rather than after sentencing, see our separate explainer on Program Statement 7331.05, Pretrial Inmates, and the regulation it implements at 28 C.F.R. part 551, subpart J.

Furlough

28 C.F.R. § 551.15 (regulation), in full — a single sentence:

An inmate whose request to marry is approved, and who also meets the Bureau’s criteria for furlough (see part 570, subpart C), may be considered for a furlough for the purpose of getting married.

Every word of that sentence is doing work. Approval to marry is a precondition, not a qualification. The furlough criteria in 28 C.F.R. part 570, subpart C are a separate test with separate eligibility rules at § 570.31. And the outcome of satisfying both is that the person “may be considered” — a furlough is discretionary at every step. See our explainers on Furloughs (PS 5280.09) and, from the family side, Temporary Release: Furlough Requests. Furlough applications have their own written-decision and appeal rules under 28 C.F.R. § 570.37: the inmate is notified of the Warden’s decision, is told the reasons for a denial, and “may appeal any aspect of the furlough program through the Administrative Remedy Program.”

The ceremony inside the institution

28 C.F.R. § 551.16 (regulation), transcribed complete:

(a) The Warden may approve the use of institution facilities for an inmate’s marriage ceremony. If a marriage ceremony poses a threat to the security or good order of the institution, the Warden may disapprove a marriage ceremony in the institution. The Warden may not delegate the authority to approve or to disapprove a marriage ceremony in the institution below the level of Acting Warden.

(b) Expenses for a marriage ceremony in the institution shall be paid by the inmate, the inmate’s intended spouse, the inmate’s family, or other appropriate source approved by the Warden. The Warden may not permit appropriated funds to be used for the marriage ceremony, except for those inherent in providing the place and supervision for the event. Upon request of the inmate, Bureau of Prisons or community clergy, or a justice of the peace may be authorized to assist in a marriage ceremony at the institution.

(1) The marriage ceremony may be performed by Bureau of Prisons or community clergy, or by a justice of the peace.

(2) Because of ecclesiastical constraints, Bureau of Prisons chaplains may decline to perform the marriage ceremony. Upon request of the inmate, a Bureau chaplain will assist that inmate in preparing for an approved marriage; for example, by providing, or arranging for an inmate to receive, prenuptial marriage counseling.

(c) The Warden shall require that a marriage ceremony at the institution be a private ceremony conducted without media publicity.

Then the Bureau’s implementing instruction, PS 5326.05 at p. 5 (policy) — the most useful paragraph on this page for anyone facing a ceremony denial:

A marriage ceremony in the institution shall not be denied because it may inconvenience the institution. Ordinarily, if there is concern about institution security or good order, the matter can be resolved by controlling the place, time, and number of participants for the ceremony, or by placing conditions or restrictions on the ceremony. When the Warden approves an inmate’s application to marry, but denies the use of institution facilities for the marriage ceremony, the Warden shall document the reasons for this disapproval.

Inconvenience is not a ground. The Bureau’s own instruction to its staff is that security concerns should ordinarily be managed by conditions — place, time, number of guests — rather than by refusal, and that a Warden who approves the marriage while refusing the venue documents the reasons. Two further staff instructions from pp. 5–6 (policy): “The institution chaplain must confirm that a community person requested to perform the marriage ceremony is either a member of the clergy or a justice of the peace,” and “The Warden shall notify the Regional Director and the Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division, Central Office, of the proposed marriage of an inmate whose marriage might attract national attention, or significant local or regional attention.”

Finally, PS 5326.05 at p. 6 (policy): “Each Warden shall develop an Institution Supplement establishing local procedures to implement this Program Statement. It should include, but not be limited to, information on the local marriage laws and processing procedures (for example, marriage license requirements, blood tests).”

What the Constitution adds

This is the rare BOP policy whose constitutional backdrop is not an overlay but the reason the policy reads the way it does.

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), is the governing decision, and it did two things. First, it settled that people in prison keep a constitutionally protected right to marry. The Court rejected the argument that the marriage cases do not reach prisoners: “It is settled that a prison inmate ‘retains those [constitutional] rights that are not inconsistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.'” It went on: “The right to marry, like many other rights, is subject to substantial restrictions as a result of incarceration. Many important attributes of marriage remain, however, after taking into account the limitations imposed by prison life.” The Court identified four — that “inmate marriages, like others, are expressions of emotional support and public commitment”; that “many religions recognize marriage as having spiritual significance”; that “most inmates eventually will be released by parole or commutation, and therefore most inmate marriages are formed in the expectation that they ultimately will be fully consummated”; and that “marital status often is a precondition to the receipt of government benefits …, property rights …, and other, less tangible benefits.”

Second, Turner set the standard that now governs every prison-regulation challenge: “when a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests,” measured by four factors — a “valid, rational connection” to a legitimate and neutral governmental interest; “whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to prison inmates”; “the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally”; and the presence or absence of “obvious, easy alternatives,” which “may be evidence that the regulation is not reasonable, but is an ‘exaggerated response’ to prison concerns.”

Applying it, the Court struck down the Missouri rule, which barred marriage absent a superintendent’s finding of “compelling reasons” — generally limited to pregnancy or the birth of a child. That rule, the Court held, “does not satisfy the reasonable relationship standard, but rather constitutes an exaggerated response to petitioners’ rehabilitation and security concerns.” The Court was careful about what it was not saying: “No doubt legitimate security concerns may require placing reasonable restrictions upon an inmate’s right to marry, and may justify requiring approval of the superintendent.”

Here is the fact that gives this Program Statement its unusual pedigree. When the Turner Court looked for the “obvious, easy alternatives” that made the Missouri rule an exaggerated response, it named the Bureau of Prisons’ own regulation — the direct ancestor of the text on this page. From the opinion at 482 U.S. 98: “See, e.g., 28 CFR § 551.10 (1986) (marriage by inmates in federal prison generally permitted, but not if warden finds that it presents a threat to security or order of institution, or to public safety).” The federal approve-unless rule was the Supreme Court’s benchmark for a constitutional marriage regulation. That does not mean any particular application of it is constitutional — but it does mean the Bureau is operating a rule the Court held out as the model, and a denial that functions like the Missouri rule in practice is in tension with the authority BOP’s own regulation was cited to illustrate.

Two decisions since round out the picture. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), held “that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty,” and that a State must license and recognize such marriages. That bears directly on § 551.12(a), the “legally eligible to marry” condition, because legal eligibility is a question of state law and Obergefell removed the state-law barrier nationwide. And Nigl v. Litscher, 940 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2019), shows how the Turner factors work on an individual denial rather than a written rule: the Seventh Circuit affirmed a one-time refusal of a marriage request, holding that “the logical connection between the denial and the asserted penological interests was not ‘so remote as to render the [decision] arbitrary or irrational,’ nor was the denial an ‘exaggerated response’ to concerns regarding the plaintiffs’ pattern of misconduct, rule-breaking, and deception in furtherance of their relationship.” Courts give “substantial deference to the professional judgment of prison administrators,” and the Turner test “is not a least restrictive alternative test.” A denial grounded in a documented, individualized record is a very different case from a categorical bar.

Applied Insight — Christopher Zoukis, JD, MBA, Managing Director: The request that gets stuck is almost never the one that gets denied — it is the one that never reaches the Warden, because the file is not complete and nobody on the outside knows what is missing. Two documents carry most of the weight, and both are produced by people who are not in prison. The first is the intended spouse’s written statement of intention to marry; § 551.12(c) makes that verification an element of approval, and PS 5326.05 at p. 4 tells staff to request it in writing. Send it unprompted, dated and signed, with a copy to the unit team by name. The second is certified proof that any prior marriage — including a common-law marriage — was legally dissolved, obtained from the vital-records office of the state where that marriage occurred. Order it early; some states take weeks. And put the request in writing on a BP-A0148 from the start, so there is a dated record of when the clock began. There is no deadline in this policy, which means the file is the only thing that creates urgency.

What the marriage policy means for you

If you are the person inside: you are the one who files

You are the one who files. Under § 551.13(a) the request goes to your unit team — not from your fiancé, not from a lawyer, not to the Warden directly. Put it in writing on a BP-A0148 Inmate Request to Staff so the date is fixed, address it to your case manager with a copy to the unit manager, and state four things: that you are requesting approval to marry under 28 C.F.R. § 551.13; the intended spouse’s full name; that a written statement of intention to marry is being provided under § 551.12(c); and whether you have any prior marriage requiring written verification of dissolution.

Know what the four conditions are before the unit team applies them, because three of the four are things you can affect. Legal eligibility under § 551.12(a) is a records question — the unit team will review your central file and your Presentence Investigation Report, and questions go to Regional Counsel. Mental competence under § 551.12(b) is drawn from existing mental-health records, and the policy tells staff not to order an examination for this purpose. The intended spouse’s verification under § 551.12(c) is a document somebody has to send. Only § 551.12(d), the security and good-order judgment, is out of your hands — and if you are housed at a medium, high or administrative facility, PS 5326.05 at pp. 2–3 tells staff to review it closely, with the Captain consulted under p. 4.

When the decision comes, it must be in writing under § 551.13(b), it must state reasons if it is a denial, and it must advise you that the decision may be appealed through the administrative remedy process. If any of those three is missing, that is itself the thing to raise. Ask separately, and early, about the ceremony: approval to marry and approval to use institution facilities are two decisions under two sections, and a furlough to marry outside is a third under § 551.15 and part 570, subpart C.

If you are the family member or the intended spouse

You cannot file the request, but you produce most of the file. Send the written statement of your intention to marry — dated, signed, and addressed to the unit team — without waiting to be asked; § 551.12(c) makes it an element, and staff are instructed at p. 4 to request one. If either of you has a prior marriage, including a common-law marriage, obtain the certified dissolution record from the state where that marriage occurred; PS 5326.05 at p. 3 asks for written verification and says common-law status and dissolution are determined under that state’s law. And find out what your state requires for a license — PS 5326.05 at p. 6 puts local marriage-license requirements in the Institution Supplement, so the unit team should be able to tell you what the local clerk needs and whether an incarcerated applicant can complete it.

Expect the boundaries on what staff will tell you. Under PS 5326.05 at p. 4, a unit team representative may reveal public record information from the file “but this contact shall not include a specific discussion of the inmate’s personal history, or suitability for marriage.” If you want more, the policy’s own answer is to “discuss these issues with the inmate, or, if preferred, to write the Warden.” Expect the costs to be yours: the license and every other expense fall on the inmate, the intended spouse, the family or another source the Warden approves, and no appropriated funds may be used (§§ 551.13(c), 551.16(b)). And expect no timetable, because the policy contains none. Related reading: Prisoners’ Wives, Girlfriends and Partners, Inmate Visitation, and Write an Inmate for getting documents in.

If you are counsel: marriage requests

Three things are worth knowing before you touch a marriage denial.

First, the paper trail is unusually good. Section 551.13(b) puts a written decision with a statement of reasons in the central file, § 551.13(a) puts the unit team’s written report and recommendation in front of the Warden, and PS 5326.05 at p. 4 makes the Captain’s assessment part of the review. On a ceremony denial, p. 5 directs the Warden to “document the reasons for this disapproval.” All of that is obtainable through the unit team or, where staff will not produce it, through a Privacy Act or FOIA request — subject to the exemptions covered by PS 1351.05.

Second, keep the regulation and the Program Statement separate. A Program Statement is the Bureau’s internal instruction to staff, not a regulation — the Supreme Court described a BOP Program Statement as “an internal agency guideline” that is “akin to an ‘interpretive rule’ that ‘do[es] not require notice and comment,'” though still entitled to some deference, in Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50 (1995). Here that distinction cuts unusually well for the client, because most of the operative content — §§ 551.10 through 551.16 — is codified regulation that binds the Bureau, not policy. The “shall approve … except,” the non-delegation clauses, the four conditions, the written notice with reasons, and the appeal advisory are all regulatory.

Third, exhaust. Section 551.13(b) itself routes the appeal into the Administrative Remedy Program under 28 C.F.R. part 542, subpart B, and under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), no action may be brought about prison conditions until available administrative remedies are exhausted. The BP-9 deadline is short: 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a) sets “20 calendar days following the date on which the basis for the Request occurred,” subject to an extension “[w]here the inmate demonstrates a valid reason for delay.” Where the denial is indefinite inaction rather than a written refusal, the record to build is the sequence of dated written requests. On the merits, frame the Turner analysis around the regulation’s own architecture and around the Court’s citation of 28 C.F.R. § 551.10 at 482 U.S. 98 as the model alternative; and read Nigl v. Litscher, 940 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2019), first, because it is the realistic measure of what an individualized, documented denial looks like when it is upheld.

What changed from PS 5326.04 to 5326.05

PS 5326.05, dated September 22, 2011, rescinded P5326.04, Marriages of Inmates (12/17/98) — PS 5326.05 at p. 2 — and it carried exactly one substantive change. From its Summary of Changes at pp. 1–2:

a. Summary of Changes. As part of the Reduction and Elimination of Duties Management Assessment Project (REDMAP), the following procedural change is approved:

• Removed the requirement for the Case Management Coordinator to train case management staff and other departments on marriage procedures.

That is the whole of it. One training obligation deleted, in a cost-and-workload review. Nothing about eligibility, procedure, notice, appeal or cost was altered in 2011, and nothing has been altered since: BOP’s June 22, 2026 mass reissue of 23 Program Statements and the February–May 2026 reissues did not reach 5326.05, which remains on the published list with no change notice.

The regulation has moved even less. The last substantive amendments to subpart B were in 1993 and 1998 — 58 FR 58248 (Oct. 29, 1993), which amended §§ 551.11 and 551.14, and 63 FR 5218 (Jan. 30, 1998), which amended § 551.10. The underlying rule dates to 49 FR 18385 (Apr. 30, 1984). Everything in it therefore predates Obergefell v. Hodges by seventeen years or more.

Three things have moved around it, and all three should be read into the text:

The “Community Corrections Manager” no longer exists under that title. Sections 551.11(b) and 551.14(c) route the request of a federal inmate who is not in a federal institution — someone in a residential reentry center, on home confinement, or in state or local custody — to “the appropriate Community Corrections Manager.” BOP now administers community placement through Residential Reentry Management field offices, and the current Community Corrections Manual, PS 7300.09, reflects that structure. The office named in the regulation is the predecessor of today’s Residential Reentry Manager. If you are in a halfway house or on home confinement, the request goes to the RRM office with jurisdiction over your placement, not to the Warden of your last institution. See Halfway House Placement Procedures and Home Confinement.

The “Immigration and Naturalization Service” no longer exists at all. Section 551.14(b) still directs staff, in the case of a pretrial inmate who is an “alien,” to contact “the Immigration and Naturalization Service.” The INS was abolished in 2003 and its functions distributed among U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The Bureau has updated its own practice without amending the codified rule: PS 5326.05 at pp. 2 and 4 uses “Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)” in its implementing text while quoting the unamended regulation above it. Worth naming precisely if an immigration consequence is at issue.

The referenced directives have been reissued. PS 5326.05 at p. 2 names two, and one has moved:

PS 5326.05 references (p. 2)	Current as of 2026-09-06
P1330.16 Administrative Remedy Program (12/31/07)	PS 1330.18 (1/6/2014)
P5280.09 Inmate Furloughs (2/10/11)	Unchanged — PS 5280.09, dated 1/20/2011, effective 2/10/2011

Where people get stuck seeking approval to marry

Four problems recur, and each has a different route.

The request went in and nothing has happened. This is the most common problem with this policy, and it exists because there is no deadline in it. Build the record. Submit a fresh Inmate Request to Staff, form BP-A0148 — the “cop-out” — to the case manager and separately to the unit manager, citing 28 C.F.R. § 551.13 by section, stating the date of the original request, listing what has been provided, and asking one specific question: what remains outstanding before the unit team’s written report goes to the Warden. Keep a copy. If two written requests produce nothing, the formal ladder opens: BP-9 to the Warden, BP-10 to the Regional Director, BP-11 to the Office of National Inmate Appeals, under 28 C.F.R. part 542, subpart B, with the 20-calendar-day BP-9 window at § 542.14(a). BOP publishes BP-A0148 but does not publish the BP-9, BP-10 or BP-11 forms; those come from the unit team. See Request to Staff (PS 5511.08), Administrative Remedy Program, and, in plain language, Prison Grievances.

The denial has no reasons in it, or it did not come from the Warden. Two separate defects, and both are regulatory rather than merely procedural. Section 551.13(b) obliges the Warden to notify the inmate in writing, to include “a statement of reason(s)” when the decision is a disapproval, and to advise that the decision may be appealed. Section 551.11(a) provides that the approval authority “may not be delegated below the level of Acting Warden.” A denial signed by a unit manager, a case management coordinator or an associate warden should be challenged on that basis before its merits are argued. Cite the sections by number in the BP-9, attach the notice you received, and ask for a decision that complies with § 551.13(b).

The marriage was approved but the wedding was not. These are different decisions and the second one has its own standard. The Warden “may approve the use of institution facilities” under § 551.16(a) and may disapprove where the ceremony “poses a threat to the security or good order of the institution” — but the Bureau’s own instruction at PS 5326.05 at p. 5 is that a ceremony “shall not be denied because it may inconvenience the institution,” that security concerns can “ordinarily” be resolved “by controlling the place, time, and number of participants for the ceremony, or by placing conditions or restrictions on the ceremony,” and that where the Warden approves the marriage but denies the venue, “the Warden shall document the reasons for this disapproval.” Ask for those documented reasons. Then ask, in the alternative, for the two things the policy expressly contemplates: conditions on the ceremony rather than refusal, and consideration of a furlough under § 551.15 if the furlough criteria in part 570, subpart C are met. On the religious side, § 551.16(b)(2) provides that a Bureau chaplain “will assist that inmate in preparing for an approved marriage” on request, including prenuptial counseling, even where the chaplain declines to perform the ceremony. See Religious Beliefs and Practices (PS 5360.10).

The denial is grounded in something other than the four conditions. Section 551.12 has four elements and § 551.10 has three grounds; a denial resting on something outside them — a disciplinary history unconnected to the marriage, a general policy against marriages at that facility, an unwritten “compelling reasons” test — is the case worth developing, because that last one is precisely what Turner struck down. Where the stated reason is § 551.12(d) security and good order, be realistic: courts give “substantial deference to the professional judgment of prison administrators,” and Nigl v. Litscher upheld an individualized denial built on a documented record. The work is in the record, not the slogan. Related: Inmate Discipline Program (PS 5270.09) where discipline is being used as the reason, and Central Inmate Monitoring System (PS 5180.05) where a separation or monitoring assignment is driving it.

Where the underlying problem is a detainer, an immigration consequence, a designation, or a mental-health record being used to question competence, the administrative path is necessary but rarely sufficient on its own. Those belong in a consult — see Federal Prison Consulting Services or contact us. Two related pages: Detainers and the Interstate Agreement (PS 5800.15) and Treatment and Care of Inmates With Mental Illness (PS 5310.16).

Related BOP policy on marriage in federal prison

The family-facing companion: What Families Should Know About Federal Prison is our orientation page for people on the outside, and it links back here for the marriage rule.

The three policies this one touches directly. Visiting Regulations (PS 5267.09) — because the Bureau’s stated concern under § 551.12(d) is a marriage entered into “to circumvent existing Bureau visiting policy” (PS 5326.05 at p. 3), and because a spouse’s visiting status is the practical consequence most people are actually asking about. Furloughs (PS 5280.09) — because § 551.15 routes an approved marriage into the separate furlough test in 28 C.F.R. part 570, subpart C. Administrative Remedy Program (PS 1330.18) — because § 551.13(b) names it as the appeal route by regulation.

Where the request comes from and where it goes: Unit Management and Inmate Program Review (PS 5321.09) for the unit team that evaluates it and writes the report; Request to Staff (PS 5511.08) for the BP-A0148 the request travels on; Halfway House Placement Procedures (PS 7310.04) and Home Confinement (PS 7320.01) for people covered by § 551.11(b) rather than § 551.11(a).

Adjacent subjects: Religious Beliefs and Practices (PS 5360.10) for the chaplain’s role and prenuptial counseling; Escorted Trips (PS 5538.08) as the other route out of the institution; Detainers and the Interstate Agreement (PS 5800.15) and Central Inmate Monitoring System (PS 5180.05) for the § 551.14 special circumstances; Security Designation and Custody Classification (PS 5100.08) and Prison Security Levels for why the scrutiny differs by facility; FOIA and Privacy Act Requests (PS 1351.05) for obtaining the unit team report and the Warden’s decision.

Staying in contact while the request is pending: Correspondence (PS 5265.14), Write an Inmate, Inmate Visitation and Inmate Phone Calls. Further reading on our site: Prisoners’ Wives, Girlfriends and Partners.

Frequently Asked Questions About Inmate Marriages

---

Program Statement 5326.05 — full text

The Bureau’s own text follows, reproduced in full from its published PDF. The original is posted by the Bureau of Prisons here: PS 5326.05 (PDF).

U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons

PROGRAM STATEMENT

OPI: CPD/CPB NUMBER: 5326.05 DATE: September 22, 2011

Marriages of Inmates

/s/ Approved: Thomas R. Kane Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons

1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE

§ 551.10 Purpose and scope. The Warden shall approve an inmate’s request to marry except where a legal restriction to the marriage exists, or where the proposed marriage presents a threat to the security or good order of the institution, or to the protection of the public. The Warden may approve the use of institution facilities for an inmate’s marriage ceremony. If a marriage ceremony poses a threat to the security or good order of the institution, the Warden may disapprove a marriage ceremony in the institution.

2. PROGRAM OBJECTIVE

The expected result of this program is: Inmate marriages will be requested, approved, and conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.

3. DIRECTIVES AFFECTED

a. Summary of Changes. As part of the Reduction and Elimination of Duties Management

Assessment Project (REDMAP), the following procedural change is approved: Federal Regulations from 28 Code of Federal Regulations, part 551, are shown in this type. Implementing instructions are shown in this type.

P5326.05 9/22/2011 Federal Regulations are shown in this type. Implementing instructions: this type. 2

• Removed the requirement for the Case Management Coordinator to train case management staff and other departments on marriage procedures.

b. Directive Rescinded

c. Directives Referenced

d. Rules cited in this Program Statement are contained in 28 CFR §551.10-16.

4. STANDARDS REFERENCED.

None.

5. PRETRIAL/HOLDOVER/AND/OR DETAINEE PROCEDURES

Procedures specified in this Program Statement apply to all Bureau holdover, pretrial, detainee, and designated inmates. U.S. Marshals’ holdovers and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) holdovers housed in Bureau custody shall be referred to those agencies for marriage consideration.

6. AUTHORITY TO APPROVE A MARRIAGE

§ 551.11 Authority to approve a marriage . (a) The Warden may approve the marriage of a federal inmate confined in a federal institution. This authority may not be delegated below the level of Acting Warden. (b) The appropriate Community Corrections Manager may approve the request to marry of a federal inmate who is not confined in a federal institution (for example, a federal inmate who is in a community corrections center, in home confinement, in state custody, or in a local detention facility).

7. ELIGIBILITY TO MARRY

§ 551.12 Eligibility to marry . An inmate’s request to marry shall be approved provided: (a) The inmate is legally eligible to marry;

P5326.05 9/22/2011 Federal Regulations are shown in this type. Implementing instructions: this type. 3

(b) The inmate is mentally competent; (c) The intended spouse has verified, ordinarily in writing, an intention to marry the inmate; and (d) The marriage poses no threat to institution security or good order, or to the protection of the public. For example, staff shall review closely the marriage request of all inmates housed in Medium, High, and Administrative Security Level institutions. This scrutiny is to ensure the request is not made to circumvent existing Bureau visiting policy, thereby posing a threat to institution security or good order.

8. APPLICATION TO MARRY

§ 551.13 Application to marry. (a) A federal inmate confined in a Bureau institution who wants to get married shall submit a request to marry to the inmate’s unit team. The unit team shall evaluate the request based on the criteria identified in § 551.12. A written report of the unit team’s findings, and its recommendation, shall be forwarded to the Warden for a final decision. The unit team shall base its recommendation on the criteria found in Section 7. When relevant, a unit team representative may request information from the U.S. Probation Officer, the intended spouse’s family (for example, where there is a question about the age of the intended spouse), or other appropriate source(s). (1) Information on the inmate’s legal eligibility to marry is determined through conversation with the inmate and by reviewing the Inmate Central File, including the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report. Indication of a present or prior marriage, including a common-law marriage, requires written verification that the marriage is legally dissolved. The status of a common-law marriage, and its dissolution, are determined under the law of the state where the marriage occurred. Questions on an inmate’s legal eligibility to marry shall be referred to the Regional Counsel. (2) Information on an inmate’s mental competence may be obtained by reviewing mental health reports prepared on the inmate prior to and/or during the present period of confinement. A mental competency examination should not be conducted specifically to determine the inmate’s mental competence to marry.

P5326.05 9/22/2011 Federal Regulations are shown in this type. Implementing instructions: this type. 4

(3) A unit team representative should contact, and request a written statement from, the intended spouse to verify that party’s interest in marrying the inmate. If requested, the staff member may reveal public record information from the inmate’s file, but this contact shall not include a specific discussion of the inmate’s personal history, or suitability for marriage. An intended spouse who requests this information shall be advised to discuss these issues with the inmate, or, if preferred, to write the Warden. (4) The unit team shall assess whether the marriage poses a threat to institution security or good order, or to public protection. As part of their review, the unit team shall consult with the Captain for his or her assessment. (b) The Warden shall notify the inmate in writing whether the inmate ’s request to marry is approved or disapproved. A copy of this notification shall be placed in the inmate’s central file. When the Warden’s decision is to disapprove the inmate’s request, the notification to the inmate shall include a statement of reason(s) for that action. The Warden shall advise the inmate that the decision may be appealed through the Administrative Remedy Procedure. (c) All expenses of the marriage (for example, a marriage license) shall be paid by the inmate, the inmate’s intended spouse, the inmate’s family, or other appropriate source approved by the Warden . The Warden may not permit appropriated funds to be used for an inmate marriage.

9. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

§ 551.14 Special circumstances. (a) Detainers and pending Charges. Staff review of a marriage request from an inmate who has a detainer(s) and/or a pending charge(s) shall include an assessment of the legal effects of the marriage on these actions. For example, an inmate could request to marry a potential witness in litigation pending against that inmate. Approving this marriage could affect the status of this litigation. Another example might be an inmate with a deportation detainer who may request permission to marry to avoid deportation. When warranted, and prior to the unit team’s report being forwarded to the Warden, a unit team representative shall contact the U.S. Attorney, ICE, or other appropriate authorities for their comments. (b) Pretrial inmates. A pretrial inmate may request permission to marry in accordance with the provisions of this rule. Staff shall contact the court, U.S. Attorney, and in the case of an alien, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, to advise of the marriage request of the pretrial inmate and to request their comments.

P5326.05 9/22/2011 Federal Regulations are shown in this type. Implementing instructions: this type. 5

Comments received should be specifically mentioned, and considered, in the unit team’s report to the Warden. (c) Federal inmates not in Federal institutions. A federal inmate who is not confined in a federal institution who wants to get married shall submit a request to the appropriate Community Corrections Manager. Prior to making a decision on the inmate’s request, the Community Corrections Manager shall advise the confining authority of the inmate ’s request and ask that information on the criteria identified in § 551.12 be furnished. Section § 551.12. refers to Section 7 of this Program Statement.

10. FURLOUGHS

§ 551.15 Furloughs. An inmate whose request to marry is approved, and who also meets the Bureau’s criteria for furlough (see part 570, subpart C), may be considered for a furlough for the purpose of getting married. See the Program Statement Inmate Furloughs for further information.

11. MARRIAGE CEREMONY IN THE INSTITUTION

§ 551.16 Marriage ceremony in the institution . (a) The Warden may approve the use of institution facilities for an inmate ’s marriage ceremony. If a marriage ceremony poses a threat to the security or good order of the institution, the Warden may disapprove a marriage ceremony in the institution. The Warden may not delegate the authority to approve or to disapprove a marriage ceremony in the institution below the level of Acting Warden. A marriage ceremony in the institution shall not be denied because it may inconvenience the institution. Ordinarily, if there is concern about institution security or good order, the matter can be resolved by controlling the place, time, and number of participants for the ceremony, or by placing conditions or restrictions on the ceremony. When the Warden approves an inmate’s application to marry, but denies the use of institution facilities for the marriage ceremony, the Warden shall document the reasons for this disapproval. (b) Expenses for a marriage ceremony in the institution shall be paid by the inmate, the inmate’s intended spouse, the inmate ’s family, or other appropriate source approved by the Warden. The Warden may not permit appropriated funds to be used for the marriage ceremony, except for those inherent in providing the place and supervision for the event. Upon request

P5326.05 9/22/2011 Federal Regulations are shown in this type. Implementing instructions: this type. 6

of the inmate, Bureau of Prisons or community clergy, or a justice of the peace may be authorized to assist in a marriage ceremony at the institution. (1) The marriage ceremony may be performed by Bureau of Prisons or community clergy, or by a justice of the peace. The institution chaplain must confirm that a community person requested to perform the marriage ceremony is either a member of the clergy or a justice of the peace. (2) Because of ecclesiastical constraints, Bureau of Prisons chaplains may decline to perform the marriage ceremony. Upon request of the inmate, a Bureau chaplain will assist that inmate in preparing for an approved marriage; for example, by providing, or arranging for an inmate to receive, prenuptial marriage counseling. (c) The Warden shall require that a marriage ceremony at the institution be a private ceremony conducted without media publicity. The Warden shall notify the Regional Director and the Assistant Director, Correctional Programs Division, Central Office, of the proposed marriage of an inmate whose marriage might attract national attention, or significant local or regional attention.

12. INSTITUTION SUPPLEMENT

Each Warden shall develop an Institution Supplement establishing local procedures to implement this Program Statement. It should include, but not be limited to, information on the local marriage laws and processing procedures (for example, marriage license requirements, blood tests). A copy shall be forwarded to the Regional Correctional Programs Administrator. Records Retention Requirements For requirements and retention guidance for records and information that apply to this program, see the Records and Information Disposition Schedule (RIDS) on Sallyport.

Reviewed for legal accuracy by Elizabeth Franklin-Best, Esq., Principal Attorney·September 2026