CONTROVERSY AROSE WHEN OFFICIALS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION ADOPTED REGULATIONS THAT PROHIBITED INMATES FROM SOLICITING THE MEMBERSHIP OF OTHER INMATES, BARRED ALL MEETINGS OF PRISONERS' UNIONS, AND REJECTED BULK MAILINGS OF UNION MATERIALS INTENDED FOR DISTRIBUTION TO OTHER INMATES. A PRISONERS' UNION FILED SUIT, ASSERTING THAT FIRST AND 14TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS HAD BEEN VIOLATED. PRISON OFFICIALS CONTENDED THAT THE CREATION AND CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF A UNION WOULD PRODUCE TENSION BETWEEN MEMBER INMATES AND NONMEMBERS AND WOULD CREATE A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SITUATION. THEY ARGUED THEIR INTEREST IN PRISON SECURITY WAS PARAMOUNT TO THE PRISONERS' RIGHT TO UNIONIZE. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AGREED WITH PRISON OFFICIALS. IN DETERMINING WHAT RIGHTS EXTEND TO PRISONERS, COURTS TRADITIONALLY DEFER TO DECISIONS MADE BY PRISON AUTHORITIES. A BALANCING TEST IS FREQUENTLY USED WHEN COURTS CONSIDER PRISONER RIGHTS AND PRISON SECURITY CONCERNS. IMPORTANT CONCEPTS IN THIS TEST ARE SUBSTANTIAL AND COMPELLING STATE INTEREST, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, SUBSTANTIAL AND IMPORTANT INTEREST, AND LESS RESTRICTIVE ALTERNATIVES. THE JONES DECISION DOES NOT OUTLAW PRISONER UNIONS, BUT IT DOES NOT PROTECT THEIR ESTABLISHMENT. PRISONERS CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF RESTRICTIVE REGULATIONS CONCERNING UNIONIZATION MUST SHOW THAT SUCH REGULATIONS BEAR NO RATIONAL RELATION TO THE FURTHERANCE OF LEGITIMATE PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES. CASE LAW IS REVIEWED, AND FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED. (DEP)