1
McQueen #7835
Assignment #2
Law 601
Bounds v Smith, 430 U.S. 817
Court: United States Supreme Court, opinion by Marshall, J.
Judicial History: Several inmates in North Carolina sued making claims that the state failed to
provide adequate legal research facilities denying them access to the courts which is violating their
Fourteenth Amendment rights. A motion for summary judgment was issued to the inmates by the
district court. The states were ordered to set up a legal research assistance program for the inmates,
however the state did not have to provide legal advisors. In the court of appeals, affirmation was
present in all except one respect, although it was not raised. The state petitioned for review and
the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Facts: There was only one inadequate state library when the prisoners filed their claims. There
was no other legal assistance available to inmates who wanted to prepare and file a federal habeas
corpus and civil rights actions.
Issue: Do the states have a responsibility to provide inmates with law libraries and/or legal
assistance?
Holding: Adequate law libraries and legal assistance must be provided to prisoners.
Reasoning: It is a constitutional right that prisoners have adequate, effective and meaningful
access to the courts. Prisoners that file appropriate procedural claims. Courts can pass on the
complaint’s adequacy prior to an in forma pauperis is allowed. The case may be dismissed if
deemed frivolous. If the prisoners do not have access to adequate legal facilities, they will not be
able to dispute the state’s argument.
In cases of civil rights and habeas corpus that involve constitutional violations, inmates have a
right to legal assistance,
Decision: Affirmed.
Concurring Opinion—Powell: The Court did not implicate any constitutional requirements
regarding prisoner’s claims.
Dissenting Opinion—Burger: There is no basis for federal courts requiring states to fund a prison
law library
Dissenting Opinion—Stewart: Making a law library available to prisoners seldomly brings
meaningful advances.
Dissenting Opinion—Rehnquist: The Prisoners have all had appeals in the state court system,
thus there is no constitutional rights to have access to federal courts attacking state court
convictions.