IN THE MID-1960'S, THE COURTS ENDED THE TRADITION OF NONINTERVENTION IN PRISON AFFAIRS AND WERE SOOON DELUGED BY INMATE PETITIONS. IN RESPONSE TO THESE PETITIONS, THE COURTS HAVE ORDERED RELIEF IN A VARIETY OF FORMS, ENJOINING CORRECTIONS OFFICIALS FROM SPECIFIC ILLEGAL ACTIONS, AWARDING DAMAGES TOO INMATES, AND CLOSING CORRECTIONS FACILITIES AND ENTIRE CORRECTIONS SYSTEMS. THE TREND TOWARD JUDICIAL INVOLVEMENT IN CORRECTIONS HAS INCREASED THE AMOUNT OF TIME CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATORS MUST SPEND IN COURT, EXPOSED THEM TO PERSONAL LIABILITY, DEMORALIZED THEIR STRAFF MEMBERS, AND LED THEM TO BECOME PREOCCUPIED WITH DOCUMENTING THEIR ACTIONS AND KEEPING ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS. IT HAS BECOME NECESSARY FOR STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL BOTH TO COUNSEL CORRECTIONS AGENCIES AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THERI PROCEDURES, AND TO DEFEND THE AGENCIES WHEN THEIR ACTIONS ARE CHALLENGED. THAT CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATORS HAVE HAD LIMITED SUCCESS IN COUNTERING SUCH CHALLENGES IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO SEVERAL FACTORS: VARYING DEGREES OF COMPETENCE AND AMOUNTS OF RESOURCES ON THE PART OF DEFENSE COUNSEL REPRESENTING CORRECTIONS AGENCIES; CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATORS' LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW AND ITS IMPLICATIONS, LIMITED RESOURCES WITH WHICH TO MAKE MEANINGFUL CHANGES IN PRISON PROGRAMS, INABILITY TO EXPLAIN PRISON RULES THAT ARE OFTEN INCOMPLETE OR CONTRADICTORY, AND RELUCTANCE OF LEGISLATURES TO INITIATE REFORMS OR TO TAKE THE LEAD IN RESPONDING TO COURT MANDATES. IN A 1977 DEDISION (JONES V. NORTH CAROLINA PRISONERS' LABOR UNION, INC.), THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SIGNALED A WILLINGNESS TO ALLOW PRISON ADMINISTRATORS TO REGAIN THE INITIATIVE IN THE CORRECTIONS DECISIONMAKING PROCESS, SUBJECT TO PROPER CHECKS AND BALANCES BY THE COURTS AND LEGISLATURES. CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ASSUME A PROACTIVE RATHER THAN REACTIVE ROLE IN PRISON REFORM (LKM)