Charges against the departments of corrections in a number of States have ranged from invasion of privacy to cruel and unusual punishment. Inmates have based cases on the violation of constitutional rights. Some correctional institutions have segregated HIV/AIDS inmates from the general population under the rationale that the general inmate population features such high- risk behavior for HIV transmission as homosexual activity, rape, and drug use. In Harris v. Thigpen, inmates challenged Alabama's Department of Corrections' policy of segregating HIV/AIDS inmates. The courts upheld the department's right to segregate HIV/AIDS inmates on the basis that such segregation served a legitimate penological interest. Settlement agreements in Austin v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and in Gates v. Rowland did not eliminate segregation of HIV/AIDS but did address some issues of concern to HIV/AIDS inmates, such as appropriate medical policies and procedures, the confidentiality of medical information, health care monitoring, and more precise standards for determining which HIV-infected inmates are segregated. The implication of the latter policy is that not all HIV/AIDS inmates will be segregated, but only those whose behavior poses a risk for other inmates. Inmates have also alleged cruel and unusual punishment and discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. As it now stands, the courts have held that if the prison administration policy is found to relate to a legitimate penological interest, the courts will most likely defer to the judgment of prison officials. 12 footnotes