The primary tool used by prison administrators to maintain the orderly functioning of the prison is the disciplinary hearing. At stake for the inmate are the conditions of confinement, job assignment, training, and length of incarceration. While most courts have focused upon the procedures necessary to guard against the arbitrary action of prison administrators, only a few courts have turned their attention to the substance of fairness in prison discipline. The use of the confidential informant at a hearing provides the greatest potential for abuse with the most serious consequences for the orderly administration of the prison. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Wolff v. McDonnell (1974), the courts rarely entertained the complaints of prisoners respecting the internal prison disciplinary process. In Wolff, the Court held that minimal procedural due process must attend the State's method of determining whether serious misconduct has occurred. There exists a continuing analysis of the application of the due process clause generally and its application to prisoners' rights specifically. In addition, the Supreme Court has never stated what standard of proof is necessary to sustain a disciplinary action against an inmate. Concerning the use of unnamed informants in disciplinary hearings, the Court in Wolff did not address the question of what information must be presented to the fact-finding authority with respect to the identity and knowledge of the informant. Other courts, such as those in the State of Oregon, have construed the meaning and limits of prison rules governing the use of informants in disciplinary hearings. The article includes 93 footnotes.