Bounds, Correction Commissioner, et al. v. Smith et al.

Supreme Court of United States
430 U.S. 817 (1977)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires state prison authorities to affirmatively assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing them with either adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.

Facts:

Inmates were incarcerated in various correctional facilities across the state of North Carolina.
The North Carolina Department of Correction maintained only one central prison library for its entire inmate population of approximately 13,000 people.
The inmates alleged this single library facility was severely inadequate for their needs.
The state did not provide any alternative sources of legal assistance to the inmates to help them prepare legal documents or understand their rights.
This lack of resources allegedly denied the inmates their ability to prepare and file legal challenges related to their convictions or the conditions of their confinement.

Procedural Posture:

Inmates (Respondents) filed three separate actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against North Carolina prison officials (Petitioners) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
The three actions were consolidated in the District Court.
The District Court granted the inmates' motion for summary judgment, finding their right of access to the courts was violated.
The District Court ordered the State of North Carolina to devise a constitutionally sound program to ensure inmate access.
The State proposed a plan to establish seven law libraries in institutions across the state.
The District Court approved the State's library plan with minor modifications, rejecting the inmates' call for more extensive libraries.
Both parties appealed adverse portions of the orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's orders in all respects except for ordering the State to eliminate sex discrimination in its plan.
The State of North Carolina (Petitioners) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts require states to affirmatively provide prisoners with law libraries or other forms of legal assistance?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall

Yes. The fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law. The Court reasoned that access to the courts must be 'adequate, effective, and meaningful,' which imposes an affirmative duty on states, not merely a duty to avoid obstructing access. Legal research is essential for any litigant, including a pro se prisoner, to identify colorable claims, understand procedural requirements, and rebut the state's legal arguments. This holding is a reaffirmation of Younger v. Gilmore and is necessary because initial petitions for habeas corpus or civil rights actions are the 'first line of defense against constitutional violations,' distinguishing them from the discretionary appeals at issue in Ross v. Moffitt. The state retains flexibility to choose its method, whether libraries or other forms of legal assistance.

Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Burger

No. The Court improperly requires states to fund the exercise of a federal statutory right—collateral attack on a conviction—which is not a constitutional requirement. The state's duty is merely negative; it must not interfere with an inmate's exercise of such rights, but it has no affirmative duty to fund them. Unlike rights grounded directly in the Constitution, such as medical care under the Eighth Amendment or counsel at trial under the Sixth, the right to collateral review is a creation of federal statute, and the federal government cannot constitutionally compel states to subsidize the exercise of such rights.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stewart

No. Providing law libraries to prisoners who are untutored in the law does not provide 'meaningful access' and will likely result in poorly drafted filings that have the 'veneer but lacking the substance of professional competence.' If the state's constitutional duty is simply not to deny or obstruct access, as established in Johnson v. Avery, then it cannot have an affirmative constitutional obligation to provide resources like law libraries.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rehnquist

No. The Court fabricates a 'fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts' that is not found in the Constitution itself. The original right of access, from Ex parte Hull, was merely a physical right to file petitions without state interception. The majority's 'meaningful access' rationale is a 'slippery slope' that logically leads to a requirement of state-appointed counsel for all collateral attacks, a conclusion unsupported by precedent and one that goes far beyond the Court's previous holdings.

Concurring - Mr. Justice Powell

Yes. While joining the majority, this opinion clarifies that the holding is limited to ensuring prisoners have the means of access to the courts. The decision does not create any new substantive rights for prisoners, nor does it dictate what kinds of claims state or federal courts are constitutionally required to hear.

Analysis:

Bounds v. Smith significantly transformed the right of access to the courts from a negative right (a state's duty not to interfere) into an affirmative one (a state's duty to provide resources). This decision established that for the right to be 'meaningful,' the state must shoulder the economic burden of providing either law libraries or legal assistance. This ruling became the cornerstone of prisoners' rights litigation concerning legal resources, directly leading to the establishment and expansion of prison law libraries and legal aid programs across the United States. It solidified the principle that incarceration does not strip individuals of their fundamental right to challenge their confinement and conditions before a court.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bounds, Correction Commissioner, et al. v. Smith et al. (1977)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"