America’s prisons and jails are information deserts. Restrictions—and in some cases, outright bans—on internet access, combined with limited library services and widespread censorship of both print and digital materials, severely restrict incarcerated individuals’ connection to the outside world. Legal information is no exception. Although access to legal information is a constitutionally mandated right, incarcerated people face significant—and often insurmountable—barriers to exercising that right–from limited access to legal materials and guidance on conducting legal research, to complex administrative procedures required to bring claims before a court. When people in prison are denied meaningful access to the courts, the harm extends beyond them—it undermines the integrity of the broader justice system by concealing wrongful convictions, enabling unconstitutional prison conditions, and allowing civil rights violations to go unchallenged.

In this project, funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), we examine the national landscape of legal access in prison, with a particular focus on the role of law librarians in facilitating that access. While there is anecdotal evidence that librarians are playing a critical role in supporting incarcerated patrons, there has been little research into the profession’s capacity to meet this need—or into the models and practices that could help strengthen its impact. Our project seeks to document how law librarians support legal access behind bars, how services vary across jurisdictions, and what barriers limit their ability to assist. Ultimately, we aim to identify promising practices, elevate replicable solutions, and develop tools that empower more librarians to work effectively with incarcerated patrons—while also helping those patrons better understand the scope of a law librarian’s role and their services.

This report summarizes the first phase of our research and frames the broader project. We begin by tracing the legal history of incarcerated individuals’ right of access to the courts. We then analyze how the current legal framework has been translated into policies governing access to legal materials in prisons and jails. This includes the first comprehensive scan of state-level policies defining what constitutes “adequate” access—and how that definition varies. In the second half of the report, we turn to the role of law librarians outside of corrections—in county, state, and academic libraries—who have stepped in to fill the gaps, offering reference services, research assistance, and document delivery to incarcerated patrons.

The picture that emerges is one of sharply limited access—particularly when it comes to guidance, training, and the tools necessary to conduct legal research. Law librarians working outside the correctional system play a vital role in supporting incarcerated patrons, but they often do so with limited resources, minimal coordination with departments of correction, and significant communication barriers.

As we move into the next phase of our research, we will focus on strengthening this critical relationship. We plan to conduct a national survey and in-depth interviews with both law librarians and incarcerated patrons to better understand their experiences and challenges. Informed by the research, our goal is to develop practical resources—such as training guides, communication templates, and recommended practices—that can support more effective, reciprocal engagement and improve access to legal information behind bars.

Key Findings

  • Law libraries inside prison: Most state policies require correctional facilities to maintain a dedicated space for their law library. Hours of operations, however, are uneven across states, and often quite limited. A majority of states impose additional restrictions to individuals in solitary confinement, further curtaining their access to legal resources.
  • Legal research tools: Access to legal research tools–such as writing supplies, computers, and printing equipment–varies widely across correctional systems but remains inadequate overall. Only five states have policies mandating their facilities to provide computers for legal research and writings; most others require only pen and paper, or typewriters. In several states, incarcerated plaintiffs are charged to access even this basic supply, and nearly all states impose fees for printing and photocopying legal documents.
  • Staffing: Most policies assign entry-level civilian employees–or, in some cases, correctional officers–to manage prison law libraries. Their responsibilities are largely administrative, with little to no role in supporting legal research. Only a small number of departments of correction require law library staff to hold credentials in library or legal fields. While many systems assign incarcerated individuals to serve as law library clerks, their duties are often narrowly defined, and they are explicitly prohibited from offering legal advice.
  • The role of external librarians: In response to these systemic gaps, law librarians working outside of correctional institutions–in state, county, and academic libraries–have stepped in to offer assistance with legal access and research. Although their involvement is typically informal and under-resourced, these efforts have become a critical lifeline for many incarcerated patrons. The Minnesota’s Law Library Service to Prisoners (LLSP) stands out as a model of formal partnership and service delivery. Elsewhere, efforts are often hindered by limited communication channels (primarily postal mail), lack of coordination with departments of correction, and restricted access.