The U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the cases of Wolfish and Chapman have ruled that double-bunking of convicted offenders and pretrial detainees in cells designed for single occupancy is not unconstitutional per se since it does not in itself involve cruel and unusual punishment. A careful reading of Wolfish and Chapman would suggest to prison officials that they can constitutionally operate penal institutions with populations greater than the institutional design capacity so long as they continue to meet the inmates' basic necessities of life; however, the lower court decisions since Wolfish and Chapman suggest that at least some courts are still appalled by the conditions of confinement brought to their attention in specific cases and are disposed to ignore the Wolfish and Chapman decisions. The greatest legal danger created by double-bunking is that as the facility becomes more overcrowded, the quality of other conditions of confinement is likely to deteriorate, such that it becomes more difficult to keep the facility clean, to provide adequate and properly prepared food, to keep the plumbing in good working order, to permit sufficient exercise, to provide adequate health care, and even to allow inmates adequate time out of their cells. The constitutional duty to protect inmates from each other also becomes more difficult. Six references and a table of cases are presented.