430 U.S. 817 (1977)
Respondents are inmates incarcerated in correctional facilities of the Division of Prisons of the North Carolina Department of Correction.1 They filed three separate actions under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, all eventually consolidated in the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.2 Respondents alleged that they were denied access to the courts in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights by the State's failure to provide legal research facilities.3
The District Court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment on this claim, finding that the sole prison library in the State was severely inadequate and that there was no other legal assistance available to inmates.4 It held that respondents' rights had been violated because there was no indication of any assistance at the initial stage of preparation of writs and petitions.5 The court recognized that determining the appropriate relief presented a difficult problem in view of North Carolina's decentralized prison system.6 It charged the Department of Correction with the task of devising a constitutionally sound program to assure inmate access to the courts, suggesting that a program to make available lawyers, law students, or public defenders might serve the purpose.7
The State responded by proposing the establishment of seven libraries in institutions located across the State chosen so as to serve best all prison units.8 It also planned smaller libraries in the Central Prison segregation unit and the Women's Prison.9 Under the plan, inmates desiring to use a library would request appointments and would be given transportation and housing if necessary for a full day's library work.10 In addition to its collection of lawbooks, each library would stock legal forms and writing paper and have typewriters and use of copying machines.11 The State proposed to train inmates as research assistants and typists to aid fellow prisoners, estimating that ultimately some 350 inmates per week could use the libraries.12 The State also submitted an application to the Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration for a grant to cover 90 percent of the cost of setting up the libraries and training a librarian and inmate clerks.13
The District Court approved the library plan as sufficient to give inmates reasonable access to the courts and held that the State was not required to provide legal assistance in addition to libraries.14 Both sides appealed from those portions of the District Court orders adverse to them.15 The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed in all respects save one, finding that the library plan denied women prisoners the same access rights as men to research facilities and ordering that discrimination eliminated.16 The State petitioned for review and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.17
Whether States must protect the right of prisoners to access to the courts by providing them with law libraries or alternative sources of legal knowledge?18
The fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers. States must provide prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.19
Yes. The established facts demonstrate that respondents, inmates in North Carolina correctional facilities, filed actions under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 alleging denial of access to the courts due to the state's failure to provide legal research facilities, with the sole prison library found severely inadequate and no other legal assistance available.20
Precedents establish that states must take affirmative steps to ensure meaningful access, including supplying paper, pens, stamps, transcripts, and either libraries or trained assistance, because pro se prisoners cannot otherwise frame nonfrivolous claims meeting procedural prerequisites or rebut state responses.21 The facts show the district court properly found a violation on this basis before ordering a remedy.22
Application of the rule to the named facts confirms the constitutional obligation, as the decentralized prison system and lack of initial assistance directly impaired the ability to present claims of fundamental rights violations.23
States must protect the right of prisoners to access to the courts by providing them with law libraries or alternative sources of legal knowledge.24
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Powell joined the opinion of the Court.25 He stressed that the decision recognizes that a prison inmate has a constitutional right of access to the courts to assert such procedural and substantive rights as may be available to him under state and federal law.26 Powell made clear that the holding does not purport to pass on the kinds of claims that the Constitution requires state or federal courts to hear.27
He observed that prior decisions had not suggested that the Constitution required civil rights actions arising under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 to be heard in federal court or required any appellate review of state convictions.28
Joined by Justice Rehnquist
Chief Justice Burger dissented, joining the opinions of Justices Stewart and Rehnquist.29 He emphasized the theoretical and practical difficulties raised by the Court's holding.30 Burger noted that the Court leaves unenlightened the source of the right of access to the courts or the requirement that States foot the bill for assuring such access for prisoners who want to act as legal researchers.31 Burger pointed out that the access sought is not for direct appellate review but for collateral attacks on state convictions, a right created by federal statute rather than the Constitution.32
He distinguished the negative duty not to interfere with access from an affirmative constitutional duty to provide assistance, arguing that the latter is a novel and doubtful proposition.33 Burger concluded that proper federal-state relations preclude federal courts from requiring States to fund costly law libraries for prison inmates.34
Justice Stewart dissented.35 He explained that more than twenty years of experience convinced him that meaningful access to federal courts can seldom be advanced by making law libraries available to untutored prison inmates.36 Stewart noted that this would simply result in the filing of pleadings heavily larded with irrelevant legalisms possessing the veneer but lacking the substance of professional competence.37
He added that if there is no constitutional right of meaningful access then there can be no affirmative constitutional obligation to provide libraries.38 Stewart concluded that he respectfully dissented from the judgment.39
Joined by Chief Justice Burger
Justice Rehnquist dissented.40 He contended that the early cases such as Ex parte Hull rested on a rationale of physical access to federal courts without prison screening of petitions rather than any affirmative duty to furnish law libraries.41 Rehnquist stated that this principle does not support requiring states to furnish law libraries to aid prisoners in preparing complaints.42
He concluded that the announced fundamental constitutional right of access is created virtually out of whole cloth with little reference to the Constitution from which it is supposed to be derived and would not have the slightest reluctance to overrule Younger v. Gilmore.43
Whether the library plan proposed by North Carolina satisfies constitutional requirements for inmate access to the courts?44
A plan providing seven libraries across the state with trained inmate assistants, forms, typewriters, copying machines, transportation, and housing for users satisfies the requirement of reasonable access when fairly and efficiently run.45
Yes. The established facts show that the state proposed seven libraries strategically located to serve all units plus smaller libraries in segregation and women's units. The plan included appointments, full-day access, legal forms, writing paper, typewriters, copying machines, and training of inmates as research assistants and typists. It estimated service for 350 inmates per week.
The district court found this plan both economically feasible and practicable to insure each inmate the time to prepare petitions. The court of appeals affirmed the plan in all respects except for the sex discrimination ruling. Application to these facts confirms that the plan meets the constitutional minimum for meaningful access.46
The library plan proposed by North Carolina satisfies constitutional requirements for inmate access to the courts.47
Whether states are required to provide legal assistance from trained persons in addition to law libraries?48
States are not constitutionally required to provide legal assistance from trained persons in addition to law libraries when the library plan alone affords reasonable access to the courts.49
No. The established facts show that after approving the library plan the district court held petitioners were not required to provide independent legal advisors in addition to libraries. It found the plan sufficient to give inmates reasonable access and supported by Ross v. Moffitt. The court of appeals affirmed this aspect of the order.50 Application to these facts establishes that the constitution does not mandate both libraries and trained assistance when one adequate method is supplied.51
States are not required to provide legal assistance from trained persons in addition to law libraries.52
Whether the district court's order directing the state to devise a remedial program exceeded the proper limits of judicial authority in prison administration?53
A district court order that finds a constitutional violation and directs the state itself to devise a remedial program while leaving the choice of means to the state respects the limits on the judicial role in prison administration.54
No. The established facts show that the district court initially held only that petitioners had violated the fundamental constitutional guarantee of access to the courts. It then ordered petitioners themselves to devise a remedy without dictating the precise course. The court strongly suggested a preference for trained advisors while approving the state's chosen library plan with only minimal changes. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court held that the courts below scrupulously respected the limits on their role.55
Application to these facts confirms that judicial restraint was observed.56
The district court's order directing the state to devise a remedial program did not exceed the proper limits of judicial authority in prison administration.57