Wolfish represents the culmination of increasing prisoner litigation since the late 1960's, much of which has been interpreted favorably for prisoners by the courts. In Bell vs. Wolfish, however, the Supreme Court reversed some of the assumptions which have guided the courts in considering these cases. Rather than considering the opinions of prison experts and state-of-the-art practices in prison administration, the Court deferred to the opinions of the administrators of the specific prison involved. The Court also failed to consider the prison as a complex interrelationship of physical arrangements and measures, impacting on the specific complaints on which litigation focuses. By using this approach, the Court has opened itself to very broadly based suits enumerating wide ranges of unsatisfactory conditions in order to force the justices to consider prison issues in their totality. By overruling lower court decisions on room searches, the Court elected to accepted the testimony of prison administration rather than that of the guards closest to the problem. The Court's ruling in the areas of overcrowding and limitations on body cavity searches showed callousness regarding the claims of prisoners for protection from administrators. Rather than limiting the impact of the Wolfish decision, attorneys should attack the Court's position until it is changed. Notes, 50 case citations, and 32 references are included.