In Bounds v. Smith, the court held that the constitutional right of access to the courts requires that States aid inmates in filing meaningful legal papers by providing access to adequate law libraries or assistance from persons with legal training. The Bounds case consolidated three actions brought by prison inmates claiming that they were denied access to the courts in violation of the 14th amendment by the State's failure to provide legal research facilities and assistance in preparation of legal actions. The case also affirmed Younger v. Gilmore (1971), in which the Court held that a California prison regulation excluding State and Federal codes from the prison library was unconstitutional. Dissenting opinions in Bounds charged the majority with a failure to specify the source of the right of access to the courts. The majority opinion does not tie the right of access to any specific constitutional provision. Instead, the majority relies on numerous cases which involve the suspension clause, the equal protection clause, and the due process clause. Questions raised by the dissenters point out the lack of careful delineation of precedent and that the constitutional locus of the right of access to the courts is not clearly defined. Although the full implications of Bounds are not foreseeable, it is clear that the right of prisoner access to legal information in preparing legal papers now stands on firmer ground. The chapter includes 107 reference notes.