Abstract
The past decade marked an evolution in the development and definition of rights retained by individuals after conviction and incarceration. In a cautious, step-by-step approach, a number of Supreme Court cases rejected the traditional "hands-off" attitude toward conflicts between prisoners and prison administrators. These decisions delineated specific constitutional rights that were not to be limited by the mere fact of incarceration. The general precept of these decisions was that incarceration should not deprive one of constitutionally protected rights, when the exercise of such rights could be reconciled with confinement. A corresponding line of cases was dedicated to protecting individuals from arbitrary governmental interference or deprivation. These decisions delineated which interests were to be protected by the requirements of procedural due process, and what procedures were required before particular deprivations could be made. Meachum v. Fano severely limited the "liberty interest" of prisoners.
Recommended Citation
Tim Sindelar,
Prisoners Have No Right to Procedural Due Process in Interinstitution Transfers: Meachumn v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976),
56 Neb. L. Rev. 753
(1977)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol56/iss3/11