FOLLOWING AN OVERVIEW OF THE USE OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO JUSTIFY FEDERAL COURT INTERVENTION TO REFORM STATE PRISON CONDITIONS, THE HISTORY OF THE ALABAMA REFORM EFFORT IS REVIEWED. SEVERAL LAWSUITS WERE FILED IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ON BEHALF OF THE PRISONERS OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION UPHELD THE SUITS' CONTENTION THAT CONDITIONS WERE SO BAD THAT MERE IMPRISONMENT IN ALABAMA CONSTITUTED CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. THE FEDERAL COURT SPELLED OUT A SERIES OF REFORMS INCLUDING THOSE REGARDING MINIMUM LIVING SPACE, VOCATIONAL TRAINING, AND OTHER INMATE PROGRAMS. THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MODIFIED THIS ORDER, STATING THAT THE LOWER COURT HAD OVERSTEPPED ITS AUTHORITY IN SPELLING OUT SUCH DETAILS AS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LIVING SPACE AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING. IT UPHELD, HOWEVER, THE RIGHT OF FEDERAL COURTS TO INTERVENE WHEN THE TOTALITY OF CONDITIONS IS SO BAD THAT IMPRISONMENT IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. SINCE THEN, FEDERAL ORDERS HAVE BEEN COUCHED IN VAGUE GENERALITIES AND ARE INEFFECTIVE BECAUSE SUCH ORDERS ARE EASILY IGNORED, EVADED, OR MISCONSTRUED. THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR THE USE OF THE EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS AS A BASIS FOR FEDERAL JUDICIAL INVOLVEMENT IN STATE PRISON REFORM ARE EXAMINED IN DETAIL. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER CAN BE USED APPROPRIATELY TO MAKE STATES COMPLY WITH CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES, AND THAT STATES WHICH INVOKE THE TENTH AMENDMENT ARE IGNORING THE BASIC PROVISIONS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AS A WHOLE. REFERENCES ARE APPENDED. (GLR)