Many of the injunctions came as a result of consent decrees entered into between inmates and prison officials and endorsed by federal courts so relief was not necessarily tied to violations found.

Many state officials and members of Congress had complained of the breadth of relief granted by federal judges, as the injunctions often required expensive remedial actions.

Thus, the central requirement of the act was a provision that a court "shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.

[5] In Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (2000), inmates attacked the constitutionality of the "automatic stay" provision as a violation of separation of powers.

On the other hand, if the time limits interfered with the inmates' meaningful opportunity to be heard, that would be a due process problem.