In 'Bounds v. Smith,' the Supreme Court held that State prison authorities were obligated to assist prisoners to have meaningful access to the courts either by providing adequate law libraries or by providing other forms of legal assistance. However, examination of 28 subsequent cases reveals several unresolved questions pertaining to the definition of meaningful access to the courts and the determination of when a law library is an effective means of access. From a review of four 'post-Bounds' cases it is concluded that for prison libraries to be adequate legal resource areas provision should be made for the purchase of State legal digests and the 'Federal Practice Digest', institution of quasi-interlibrary loan procedures, and flexibility in library service standards to accommodate prisoners on varying work schedules. In the absence of a consensus on what constitutes meaningful access to the courts, programs that have been adopted by prison systems throughout the country include law school clinical programs, 'hybrid' law school programs, lawyer-staffed programs, reliance on writ writers or jailhouse lawyers, volunteer programs, and public defender programs. A survey of inhouse legal service programs in Texas prisons reveals understaffing and key items missing from prison law libraries. In contrast, programs for prisoners in the New York and Washington State Correctional systems are much more successful in meeting established standards. A legal services project staffed by resident counsel is the best type of program for meeting inmates' legal needs. Eighty-six footnote references are provided.