The hostility of the burger court to mental health law reform litigation.

In recent years, many courts (and especially the federal courts) have become the focus for the pursuit of goals of major institutional reform in cases brought by advocates for prisoners, mental patients, students, and others.2 These advocates turned to the courts because the legislative and executive branches were unwilling to devote larger shares of scarce resources to improving conditions at custodial institutions. 3 Primarily using the Civil Rights Act4 as the basis for jurisdiction, advocates throughout the 1960s and 1970s brought many actions seeking institutional reform in the federal courts.5 These actions, alleging the existence of unconstitutional conditions sought wide-ranging relief to remedy the unconstitutional conditions.6 Frequently, such advocates found federaljudges willing to tackle the task of changing institutions.7 After determining that constitutional violations existed, federal judges had to confront the issue of what relief was appropriate and necessary. Frequently, judges discovered that once they became involved with the effort to change an institution, a simple injunctive decree would not suffice.s Rather, a broad use of equitable power was necessary to accomplish the goals of upgrading an institution. As Professor Chayes noted, "the trial judge has increasingly become the creator and manager of complex forms of ongoing relief, which have widespread effects on persons not before cqurts and required the judge's continuing involvement in administration and implementation."9 The active role of the courts was justified by the continuing failure of public officials to make changes voluntarily. 10 Central to the development of activism of the federal courts has been an expansion of traditional equitable relief, especially the affirmative injunction.1l Courts have used their power to specify particular requirements rather than simply to declare conditions to be violative of the Constitution and to leave the implementation to public officials. 12 After determination of liability, law reform cases, unlike the usual civil case, do not simply end. Common to virtually all such cases is retention of jurisdiction by the trial court, which leads to an elaborate relief and im-