Three U.S. Supreme Court cases have set the boundaries on the inmates' right of access to the courts. In these, the court decided that the writ of habeas corpus is a fundamental right and that inmates cannot be denied access to the courts for the purpose of presenting such writs. It held that access to the courts could also not be denied in civil rights actions, and that inmates must be provided with a law library or adequate assistance of persons trained in the law. In these cases, the court noted that States could impose reasonable restrictions and restraints. Other cases have examined the adequacy of inmate law libraries, generally basing their decision on the ability of the complaining plaintiff to litigate the case. Additional court decisions have held that a law library is an adequate substitute for appointed counsel and that law libraries must be kept current. These decisions give jail and prison officials a choice: They can either provide adequate law libraries or reasonable access to persons trained in the law who can act in behalf of inmates. This obligation exists regardless of whether the inmate is a pretrial detainee or a convicted offender. Access to the courts can only be limited in terms of legitimate security interests. Adequacy of access can be determined by evaluating inmates' ability to get their cases to court to be heard in timely fashion and by access to materials needed to pursue the case. 17 footnotes.