1. United States
It is recognized that the right to meaningful access to courts generally requires access to adequate resources under the Fourth Amendment.
"More importantly, [the U.S. Supreme] Court's experience indicates that pro se petitioners are capable of using lawbooks to file cases raising claims that are serious and legitimate [...] therefore, [] the fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law." Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, (1977)
Since '77, plenty of cases attempted to unreasonably curtail limited this right — just a few examples:
Generally, no right in unrelated matters
"The tools [the constitution] requires to be provided are those that the inmates need in order to attack their sentences, directly or collaterally, and in order to challenge the conditions of their confinement. Impairment of any other litigating capacity is simply one of the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration." (Lewis v. Casey), 518 U.S. at 355 (1996)
Right to adequate means in constitutional rights' violations
"[L]aw libraries or other forms of legal assistance are needed to give prisoners a reasonably adequate opportunity to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights to the courts." (Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)
2. Minnesota (as of yesterday)
No right acknowledged to internet, Electronic Law Library or even sites to legislation
When alleging that [one's] meaningful access to the courts has been denied, an inmate must allege that prison officials caused an “actual injury,” namely, that a “nonfrivolous (sic!) and arguably meritorious underlying legal claim” was frustrated or impeded. White v. Kautzky, 494 F.3d 677, 680 (8th Cir. 2007). Alleging a theoretical inadequacy is not sufficient. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351. Rather, an inmate must show a causal connection between a library inadequacy and an actual injury. See Entzi v. Redmann, 485 F.3d 998, 1005 (8th Cir. 2007). Absent an explanation demonstrating how the alleged library inadequacy [in the operation of the Electronic Law Library] either prevented the inmate from filing an arguably meritorious legal claim or caused an arguably meritorious claim to be dismissed as deficient, the inmate's “alleged injuries are merely speculative.” Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 833 (8th Cir. 2008)" (Biron v. Carvajal, 20-cv-2110 (WMW/ECW) (D. Minn. Sep. 16, 2021)
3. United States
See 1.
