Overview

The case of Bounds v. Smith reached the Supreme Court on November 1, 1976 and was decided on April 27, 1977. Bounds v. Smith tested the basic constitutional right of prison inmates’ access to legal documents prior to court. Prison authorities would consequently be required to provide legal assistance and counsel to inmates, whether it be through a trained legal professional or access to a legal library.
Multiple prisoners alleged that they were denied access to the courts due to lack of an adequate legal library and assistance with court related documents.

Background

The case of Bound v. Smith was preceded by Johnson v. Avery, a similar case brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 concerning, once again, the extent of prisoners’ rights within the confines of a jail or penitentiary. Johnson v. Avery involved a Tennessee convict who petitioned the courts regarding the prison’s disciplinary action exacted on the inmate after breaking a prison rule. The rule states, "No inmate will advise, assist or otherwise contract to aid another, either with or without a fee, to prepare Writs or other legal matters. It is not intended that an innocent man be punished. When a man believes he is unlawfully held or illegally convicted, he should prepare a brief or state his complaint in letter form and address it to his lawyer or a judge. A formal Writ is not necessary to receive a hearing. False charges or untrue complaints may be punished. Inmates are forbidden to set themselves up as practitioners for the purpose of promoting a business of writing Writs." The ruling was favor of the prisoners. Johnson v. Avery established that the assistance of a prisoner by a prisoner in filing and research of legal papers was completely legal.

There have been many cases, similar to Bounds v. Smith, that have established reasonable precedent

Precedent

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule established in a legal case that a court or other judicial body may apply when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts...

 regarding a prisoner’s access to the courts. In the case of Cochran v. Kansas of 1942, it was confirmed that prisoners have a right of access to the courts and the prohibition of this access is unconstitutional. Specifically, Cochran v. Kansas ruled in favor of a petitioner, who was a prisoner, who wished to file with the federal courts a writ of habeas corpus

Habeas corpus

is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations...

. Again, a similar instance preceded Bounds v. Smith. In Burns v. Ohio of 1959, the Supreme Court

Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...

 ruled that docket and other fees imposed on inmates were constitutional violations. By 1963, in Douglas v. California

Douglas v. California

Douglas v. California, , was a case before the United States Supreme Court.-Facts:Two defendants were tried and convicted in a California state court on felony charges including robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and assault with intent to commit murder.A single public defender had been...

, the Court even went as far as to rule that a prisoner must be provided legal counsel if it means he will receive a “meaningful appeal.” Time and time again, the rulings of additional court cases have struck down hindrances obstructing the right of prisoners access to the courts.

Conflict

In the case of Bounds v Smith, petitioners of the courts are those incarcerated within the Division of Prisons of the North Carolina Department of Correction

North Carolina Department of Correction

The North Carolina Department of Correction is the agency responsible for corrections in the U.S. state of North Carolina.-History:In 1868, North Carolina adopted a new State Constitution that provided for building a state penitentiary. Inmates began building the state's first prison, Central...

. These respondents filed three actions alleging a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...

  rights through denial of proper avenues to legal research. Eventually the case was heard at District Court. The courts approved the motion based on a number of valid claims made by the respondents, specifically citing the lack of an adequate prison library system reason enough for a trial. Due to precedent established in, first, Johnson v. Avery, and then Younger v. Gilmore, the courts found that equality under law had been disregarded because of a severe lack of assistance for inmates wishing to prepare legal documents. Specifically in the case of North Carolina’s prison system however, the substance of valuable legal assistance was scarce and thus presented a possibly more logistical problem than argued by the respondents. The District Courts did recognize this fact.
The District Court ruled that North Carolina must develop and institute a plan that provided inmates with a form of legal assistance that satisfied a degree of Constitutionality. It was suggested to Senators that create an effective and economic plan possible providing lawyers and other legal professionals along with the expansion of state law libraries.

And so, the state responded. A proposal designed to redefine the State’s legal informational system was drawn up. The establishment of seven new libraries, spread across the state, was planned, along with the creation of additional smaller libraries. Use of the libraries required an appointment. Appointments were preferentially given to those with court dates within the next month. In accordance with the fact that libraries were not always located within prisons, transportation and housing would also be provided by the State.

The State then sought to create a legal library system, in accordance to what the courts determined to be “adequate.” The revamped libraries included a vast collection of law books, type writers, and a supply of legal forms. Additionally, the State trained inmates as assistants and typists, who were made readily available to aid fellow inmates. The new library system supported about 350 prisoners per week. Despite the changes and obvious improvements, prisoners were still unsatisfied with the new library and research system. Protestors of the new plan claimed it was inadequate in that it failed to satisfy the basic legal needs of every prisoner, thus denying citizens access to the courts. Respondents demanded a library in every prison.

At the level of the District Court

District court

District courts are a category of courts which exists in several nations. These include:-Australia:District Court is the name given to the intermediate court in most Australian States. They hear indictable criminal offences excluding treason, murder and, in some States, manslaughter...

, however, the plan was seen as not only legally adequate, but economically sustainable. With these two conditions seemingly met, the Court rejects the respondents’ objections.
Along with the overruling of this objection, the District Court also concluded that, constitutionally, the State was not required to provide legal assistance to prisoners. Individual legal assistance was not necessary and the furnishings of attorneys were not necessary, with such a sufficient library at hand. This was the final decision of the District Court.

With the approval of the plan, the State then applied for federal aid, hoping to cover up to 90% of the costs of building and maintaining the new prison libraries. The grant that the State applied to is the Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. Under federal laws, the applicants must satisfy a set of criteria in order to receive any sort of monetary aid. The State of North Carolina’s application proposed what they believed to be a “meaningful and effective access to the court…” However, cited what they viewed as a sexist plan. According to them, the proposal lacked legal assistance in women’s prisons across the state and thus the case was ordered to judicial evaluation.
Both the State and respondents appealed to the ruling, each discontent with the Court’s rulings adverse to them. The case was then brought to the Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals

A court of appeals is an appellate court generally.Court of Appeals may refer to:*Military Court of Appeals *Corte d'Assise d'Appello *Philippine Court of Appeals*High Court of Appeals of Turkey*United States courts of appeals...

, who denied the plan receives funding and additionally ordered it be abolished. The State of North Carolina then issued a writ of certiorari. The petition was granted by the Supreme Court.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Marshall

Justice Marshall

Justice Marshall may refer to:* John Marshall , a Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court* Thurgood Marshall , an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court...

 delivered the opinion of the court. He started by establishing that the court accepted the precedent built up from previous cases and confirmed that prisoners have a right to access of the courts. He states “Petitioners' hyperbolic claim is particularly inappropriate in this case, for the courts below scrupulously respected the limits on their role. The District Court

District court

District courts are a category of courts which exists in several nations. These include:-Australia:District Court is the name given to the intermediate court in most Australian States. They hear indictable criminal offences excluding treason, murder and, in some States, manslaughter...

 initially held only that petitioners had violated the "fundamental constitutional guarantee," ibid., of access to the courts. It did not thereupon thrust itself into prison administration. Rather, it ordered petitioners themselves to devise a remedy for the violation, strongly suggesting that it would prefer a plan providing trained legal advisors. Petitioners chose to establish law libraries, however, and their plan was approved with only minimal changes over the strong objections of respondents. Prison administrators thus exercised wide discretion within the bounds of constitutional requirements in this case. The judgment is: Affirmed.”

Justice Rehnquist issued the dissenting opinion

Dissenting opinion

A dissenting opinion is an opinion in a legal case written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court which gives rise to its judgment....

. He stated, “There is nothing in the United States Constitution

United States Constitution

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...

 which requires that a convict serving a term of imprisonment in a state penal institution pursuant to a final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction have a "right of access" to the federal courts in order to attack his sentence… In any event, the Court's opinion today does not appear to proceed upon the guarantee of equal protection of the laws, a guarantee which at least has the merit of being found in the Fourteenth Amendment

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...

to the Constitution. It proceeds instead to enunciate a "fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts," ante, at 828, which is found nowhere in the Constitution. But if a prisoner incarcerated pursuant to a final judgment of conviction is not prevented from physical access to the federal courts in order that he may file therein petitions for relief which Congress has authorized those courts [430 U.S. 817, 840] to grant, he has been accorded the only constitutional right of access to the courts that our cases have articulated in a reasoned way.”