Logourl black

Lewis v. Casey

United States Supreme Court
518 U.S. 343 (1996)


Facts

Casey and twenty-one other inmates in a prison operated by the Arizona Department of Corrections (plaintiffs) filed a class action in district court against Lewis (defendant), Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, alleging deprivation of their rights of access to the courts and counsel protected by the Firstly, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court found Arizona’s prison system deficient in several ways, particularly in its lack of provision for an adequate law library and legal assistance program which they believed denied inmates access to the courts. Additionally, the district court noted that the Arizona system burdened the rights of two groups of inmates: lockdown prisoners (who were those segregated from the general prison population for disciplinary or security reasons) and illiterate or non-English-speaking inmates. The district court found that these groups were routinely denied access to courts and adequate legal assistance. The district court noted that Bounds v. Smith (1977) established that constitutional rights if totally or functionally illiterate inmates were unable to articulate their complaints to the courts." The district court held that defendant’s system of prison governance was unconstitutional, and the court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence (Thomas, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence/Dissent (Souter, J.)

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Dissent (Stevens, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Here's why 78,000 law students rely on our case briefs:

  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners not other law students.
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet.
  • 10,692 briefs - keyed to 140 casebooks.
  • Uniform format for every case brief.
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language.
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions.
  • Ability to tag case briefs in an outlining tool.
  • Top-notch customer support.
Start Your Free Trial Now