IN THE BOUNDS DECISION, THE COURT UPHELD A LOWER COURT RULING THAT NORTH CAROLINA MUST PROVIDE ITS INMATES WITH PRISON LIBRARIES, REASONING THAT STATES ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED TO PROTECT PRISONERS' RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS BY PROVIDING THEM WITH LIBRARIES OR ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF LEGAL KNOWLEDGE. THIS DECISION PRESENTS SEVERAL PROBLEMS. THE COURT BASES ITS ARGUMENT ON PRECEDENT RECOGNIZING A RIGHT OF ACCESS, BUT FAILS TO ELUCIDATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL SOURCE OF THE RIGHT. THE BOUNDS DECISION DEVIATES FROM THE TRADITIONAL ASSUMPTION THAT, WHILE A STATE MAY BE REQUIRED TO REFRAIN FROM INTERFERING WITH A FEDERAL RIGHT, IT MAY NOT BE REQUIRED AFFIRMATIVELY TO ENSURE THAT RIGHT. A THIRD PROBLEM IS THE LIKELIHOOD THAT PROVIDING INMATES WITH LAW LIBRARIES WILL NOT ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS, THE IMPLICATION BEING THAT STATES MAY IN THE FUTURE BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE 'ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF LEGAL KNOWLEDGE' MENTIONED BUT NOT SPECIFIED BY THE COURT. THE BOUNDS DECISION IS A REAFFIRMATION OF WHAT MOST FEDERAL COURTS PERCEIVE TO BE AN EARLIER MANDATE ON PRISON LIBRARIES, AND AS SUCH IS UNLIKELY TO IMPOSE SUBSTANTIAL NEW BURDENS ON STATES. BUT IF IN THE FUTURE THE BOUNDS REASONING IS EXTENDED TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION--THAT INMATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPOINTED COUNSEL--THE IMPACT ON STATES WOULD BE CONSIDERABLE. IN THAT IT PLACES AN AFFIRMATIVE DUTY ON THE STATES TO ASSURE A FEDERAL RIGHT, THE BOUNDS DECISION MAY HAVE RAMIFICATIONS BEYOND THE CORRECTIONS FIELD. (LKM)