IN PREISER V. RODRIGUEZ, THE COURT HELD THAT HABEAS CORPUS PROVIDES THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR A PRISONER WHO CHALLENGES THE FACT OR DURATION OF HIS OR HER PHYSICAL CONFINEMENT AND SEEKS IMMEDIATE OR SPEEDIER RELEASE. BY PRESCRIBING EXCLUSIVE HABEAS CORPUS JURISDICTION FOR SUCH COMPLAINTS, THE COURT ATTEMPTED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PRISONER'S RIGHTS CASES BY FORECLOSING IMMEDIATE FEDERAL JURISDICTION, BECAUSE THE FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS STATUTE REQUIRES PRIOR EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES. ALTHOUGH THE CORE OF HABEAS CORPUS IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO EXPANSIVE INTERPRETATION, THE LOWER COURTS HAVE WISELY LIMITED ITS APPLICATION TO PRISONERS SEEKING IMMEDIATE RELEASE OR REDUCTION IN THE DURATION OF CONFINEMENT. THE COURTS HAVE NOT USED PREISER VERSUS RODRIGUEZ TO ERECT JURISDICTIONAL BARRIERS TO RELIEF MERELY BECAUSE A PRISONER'S CHALLENGE TO A CERTAIN ASPECT OF HIS OR HER PRISON LIFE MIGHT EXERT A TANGENTIAL EFFECT ON THE INMATE'S PROSPECT FOR ULTIMATE RELEASE. EXCEPT IN A FEW CASES INVOLVING PRISONER CLASSIFICATIONS, THE LOWER COURTS HAVE REMAINED CONSISTENTLY SENSITIVE TO PRISONER GRIEVANCES AND HAVE NOT BEEN PERSUADED BY A FLOODGATE ARGUMENT TO INVOKE THE PREISER DECISION. SINCE THE DEMISE OF THE HANDS-OFF DOCTRINE, STATE PRISONERS HAVE TURNED TO THE FEDERAL COURTS AS THE PRIMARY GUARDIANS OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS. A CONSEQUENCE OF THE RESULTING INCREASED JUDICIAL SCRUTINY IS THE GROWTH OF PRISONER RIGHTS, ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. THUS, ALTHOUGH THE SUPREME COURT ATTEMPTED TO DECREASE FEDERAL INTERVENTION AND INCREASE STATE REGULATION OVER PRISON AFFAIRS, THIS ATTEMPT HAS FAILED, DUE IN PART TO THE LOWER COURT'S NARROW INTERPRETATION OF THE PREISER DECISION. REFERENCES ARE FOOTNOTED. (KBL)