Lewis v. Casey
United States Supreme Court
518 U.S. 343 (1996)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Casey and other inmates (the inmates) (plaintiffs) in Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) prisons filed a class-action suit against Lewis (defendant), ADOC’s director. The inmates alleged that ADOC deprived them of their right of access to the courts protected by the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court found ADOC’s prison system deficient in multiple ways regarding its law libraries and access to legal assistance. Additionally, the district court noted that ADOC’s system particularly impacted inmates in lockdown, who were segregated for disciplinary or security reasons, and illiterate or non-English-speaking inmates. Although the district court found general inadequacies in ADOC’s systems, the court identified only two of the inmates who had suffered actual injury from those inadequacies. The two inmates were slow readers, and one had a case dismissed with prejudice and another was unable to file a legal action. The district court held that ADOC’s system was unconstitutional and ordered systemwide changes, including specifying minimum library access, setting minimum qualifications for library staff, and requiring a legal-research course for inmates. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)
Concurrence (Thomas, J.)
Dissent (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.