REMEDIES WITHOUT RIGHTS? THE LEGAL BASIS OF BROAD-GAUGE DECREES IN PRISON CONDITIONS CASES

This paper examines the legal basis for "broad-gauge" or "administrative intervention" decrees in the sort of lawsuits which have come to be known as extended impact cases, polycentric disputes, or public law litigation. It concludes that equity provides an adequate basis for such decrees and that the Supreme Court's recent use of a narrower view of judicial equity powers, sometimes called the tailoring principle, is not compelled by precedent. The paper further argues that the Supreme Court appears headed in the direction of using the tailoring principle in prison conditions cases (e.g., Bell v. Wolfish), although some support for a broader view of judicial equity power is found in Hutto v. Finney. Copyright 1982 by The Policy Studies Organization.