SUPREME COURT DECISIONS HAVE REFLECTED A TOLERENCE FOR AND EVEN A DEFERENCE TO THE VALUES OF PRISON ADMINISTRATORS WHO EMERGED IN THE WAKE OF THE SOCIAL UPHEAVALS OF THE LATE 1960'S. ALTHOUGH REAL IMPROVEMENTS IN PRISON CONDITIONS ARE LIKELY TO FOLLOW THE ENTRY OF NEW BUREAUCRATS IN TO THE TRADITIONAL PRISON SYSTEM, THE NEW ADMINISTRATORS' COMPLEX SET OF PRIORITIES IS AT ODDS WITH 'CONSTITUTIONALIZING' THE PRISON SYSTEM; I.E., WITH EXTENDING BASIC CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS TO INMATES, PARTICULARLY THROUGH REASONABLE STANDARDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE FAIRNESS, RESPONSIVENESS, AND RESTRAINT. IN ADDITION, THE STYLE OF THE NEW ADMINISTRATORS, UNLIKE THAT OF THEIR PREDECESSORS, REQUIRES THAT THEY CONCEAL THE ROLE PRISONS PLAY IN CONTROLLING ETHNICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY DISFAVORED GROUPS -- AT LEAST TO THE EXTENT THAT SUPPRESSION OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY IN THE PRISONS CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS. DESPITE THE ADMINISTRATORS' EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES WITH THE MODERATE REFORMERS OF THE 1960'S, THE LIMITED REDISTRIBUTION OF POWER AMONG ADMINISTRATORS, GUARDS, AND INMATES THAT HAS EVOLVED THROUGH COURT (AND TO A LESSER EXTENT LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY) ACTION IS A LONG WAY FROM THE FULLY CONSTITUTIONALIZED SYSTEM ENVISIONED BY REFORMERS. FOR THESE REASONS, LITIGATORS DEVOTED TO PRISON REFORM WILL CONTINUE TO CHALLENGE EXERCISES OF THE TRADITIONALLY GREAT DISCRETION OF PRISON OFFICIALS. STRATEGIES FOR SUCH LITIGATION ARE SUGGESTED IN AN ANALYSIS OF DOCTRINAL WEAKNESSESS IN SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS REGARDING THE DUE PROCESS AND FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF INMATES, THE TWO AREAS OF PRISON LAW THAT SEEM TO ILLUSTRATE BEST BOTH THE SUPREME COURT'S POLICY JUDGMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE NEW PRISON ADMINISTRATORS AND THE DOCTRINAL INCONSISTENCIES THAT HAVE RESULTED FROM THESE UNARTICULATED POLICY PREFERENCES. IT IS PREDICTED THAT, AS THE NEW PRISON ADMINISTRATORS PERSUADE THE COURT THAT THEY CAN BE TRUSTED, A PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL OF THE PRISONS FROM FEDERAL COURT SCRUTINY WILL OCCUR, AND PRISON SYSTEMS WILL WORSEN. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE COURT'S PRISON LAW DECISIONS ARE RENDERED UNPERSUASIVE BY THEIR ANALYTICAL WEAKNESSES AND INCONSISTENCIES, A FUTURE COURT, PARTICULARLY ONE SITTING DURING AN ERA OF SOCIAL REFORM, WILL HAVE LITTLE REASON TO DEFER TO THEM. A MORE FUNDAMENTAL REASON FOR DOUBTING THE CONTINUING SUCCESS OF THE NEW PRISON ADMINISTRATORS HAS TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THEIR AIM OF DEPOLITICIZING AND BUREAUCRATIZING THE PRISON SYSTEM, THEY MUST SUPPRESS INMATES' CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE FUNCTION OF THAT SYSTEM AS A MECHANISM OF CLASS CONTROL. SUCH CONSCIOUSNESS IS WIDESPREAD IN AMERICAN PRISONS, AND IN THE LONG RUN CAN BE REPRESSED ONLY THRUGH OVERT PHYSICAL FORCE OF A KIND THAT WOULD OBLITERATE THE THIN LINE THAT SEPARATES THE NEW ADMINISTRATORS FROM THEIR PREDECESSORS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)