IN MEACHUM V. FANO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE TRANSFER OF STATE INMATES TO A PRISON WHERE LIVING CONDITIONS WERE WORSE THAN AT THE FIRST PRISON DID NOT DEPRIVE THE PRISONER OF DUE PROCESS WHERE NO STATE LAW OR PRACTICE EXISTED PREDICATING SUCH TRANSFERS ON SERIOUS MISCONDUCT. THE DECISION'S BROAD LEGAL IMPORTANCE LIES IN THE COURT'S ARGUMENT THAT NO 'ENTITLEMENT' EXISTED TO TRIGGER PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS, UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT; I.E., THAT THERE DID NOT EXIST AN INDEPENDENT LEGAL RIGHT HELD BY THE INMATE. AFTER A DISCUSSION OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS AND KEY ARGUMENTS IN MEACHUM, THE ARTICLE DEVELOPS THE KEY ELEMENTS OF THE ENTITLEMENT VIEW OF DUE PROCESS AND SKETCHES AND CRITICIZES ITS APPLICATION TO INTERPRISON TRANSFER. THE ALTERNATIVE IMPACT VIEW OF DUE PROCESS, ACCORDING TO WHICH PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT ARE WARRANTED IF 'GRIEVOUS' HARM WOULD ENSUE FROM A DISCIPLINARY DEPRIVATION, AND ITS APPLICATION IN SPECIFIC AREAS OF PRISON DISCIPLINE ARE DISCUSSED. MEACHUM AND THE IMPACT VIEW ARE TREATED IN LIGHT OF THE REALITIES OF PRISON LIFE, THE NEED FOR DISCRETION OF PRISON OFFICIALS, AND THE DEFINITENESS OF THE GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS. THE ANALYSIS CONCLUDES BY SUGGESTING THAT THE IMPACT VIEW IS PREFERABLE TO MEACHUM'S NARROW INTERPRETATION OF AN INMATE'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. (DJM)