CASES IN ALL OF THESE AREAS HAVE SHOWN A TREND OF UNWILLINGNESS ON THE PART OF THE SUPREME COURT TO INTERVENE IN ORDER TO VINDICATE INMATE CLAIMS OF CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS. ACCESS TO THE COURTS HAS BEEN GREATLY EXPANDED WHILE THE OTHER RIGHTS HAVE SUFFERED. ONE PRISONER'S ASSERTION THAT INADEQUATE MEDICAL TREATMENT CONSTITUTED CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT WAS DENIED BY THE COURT. IT STATED THAT DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO THE SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS OF PRISONERS DID VIOLATE THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, BUT THAT DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE DID NOT ENCOMPASS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND MERE NEGLIGENCE. THESE DID NOT BECOME CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS MERELY BECAUSE THE VICTIM WAS A PRISONER. IN ANOTHER CASE, A NORTH CAROLINA INMATE LABOR UNION WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SOLICIT MEMBERSHIP, HOLD ORGANIZED MEETINGS, OR MAKE BULK MAILINGS OF UNION MATERIALS TO INMATES. THE UNION ASSERTED THAT THE INMATES' FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS HAD BEEN VIOLATED. THE SUPREME COURT DENIED THE CLAIM. THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION'S FEARS THAT COLLECTIVE ACTION BY THE UNION PRESENTED A THREAT TO THE LEGITIMATE OBJECTIVES OF THE PRISON SYSTEM WERE CONSIDERED TO BE REASONABLE AND THE CHALLENGED REGULATIONS TO BE SUFFICIENTLY NARROW. IN ANOTHER NORTH CAROLINA CASE, INMATES CHARGED THAT PRISON ADMINISTRATORS DENIED THEM ADEQUATE ACCESS TO LEGAL MATERIALS AND ASSISTANCE. THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THIS CHARGE AND ORDERED PRISON AUTHORITIES TO ESTABLISH PRISON LAW LIBRARIES OR TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATE FORM OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT, AS A RESULT OF THE COURT'S DECISIONS, PRISONERS WILL HAVE GREATER ACCESS TO THE COURTS FOR AIRING THEIR CLAIMS BUT MAY HAVE NO SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS TO ASSERT ONCE THEY GET THERE. (VDA)