THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS NEVER ADDRESSED THE CONCEPT OF PROPORTIONALITY DIRECTLY BUT HAS ALLUDED TO IT IN OTHER DECISIONS. THE CONCEPT BEGAN IN A VERMONT CASE IN 1892 WHICH INVOLVED A 54-YEAR SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR 307 SEPARATE OFFENSES OF THE ILLEGAL SALE OF LIQUOR. THE COURT REFUSED TO UPHOLD THE SENTENCE, POINTING OUT THAT SOME DEGREES OF HOMICIDE, MISPRISION OF TREASON, CONSPIRACY TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT, FORGERY, AND ROBBERY WERE NOT PUNISHED SO SEVERELY. THE CONCEPT SURFACED AGAIN IN 1932 AND IN 1957, BUT ITS PRESENT INTERPRETATION RESTS ON FOUR CASES: HART V. COINER, A 1974 CASE TESTING THE WEST VIRGINIA HABITUAL OFFENDER STATUTE; DOWNEY V. PERINI, A 1974 TEST OF OHIO'S MARIJUANA STATUTES, CARMONA V. WARD, A 1979 CASE CONTESTING TWO LIFE SENTENCES IMPOSED FOR NARCOTICS VIOLATIONS IN NEW YORK; AND RUMMEL V. ESTELLE, A 1978 TEXAS HABITUAL OFFENDER CASE IN WHICH THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT UPHELD THE STATE. ALL OF THESE CASES USED CRITERIA FIRST SET FORTH IN HART INCLUDING THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE, WHETHER THE SENTENCE WAS 'NECESSARY' TO ACCOMPLISH LEGISLATIVE PURPOSES, THE PUNISHMENTS IMPOSED FOR THE CRIME IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, AND PUNISHMENTS IMPOSED FOR OTHER CRIMES IN THE SAME JURISDICTION. THE HART AND DOWNEY CASES WERE DECIDED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT, THE OTHERS AGAINST. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS OCCASIONALLY BEEN ASKED TO REVIEW PROPORTIONALITY CASES. IT HAS SAID THAT THE DEATH PENALTY IS NOT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT AND HAS INDIRECTLY FAVORED TESTS SIMILAR TO THOSE USED IN HART. EXTENSIVE COMMENTARY, NOTES, AND REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (GLR)