Resources

Court Cases

• Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 2011

  The Supreme Court of the United States held that there is no right under the Federal Constitution to be conditionally released prior to the expiration of a valid sentence. In the context of parole, the procedures required are minimal.

• Greenholtz v. Inmates for Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex. 1979

  The Supreme Court of the United States held that an inmate received adequate process when he was allowed an opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied. The Constitution does not require more.

• Burnette v. Fahey, 687 F.3d. 171. 2012

  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of inmate appellants’ complaint as the complaint failed to set forth sufficient facts to establish a plausible entitlement to relief under either a due process or ex post facto theory. Because the decision to grant parole is a discretionary one, a prisoner cannot claim entitlement and therefore a liberty interest in release. There is no protected liberty interest in the exercise of discretion.

• Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778. 1973

  The Supreme Court of the United States decided the right to counsel during probation or parole revocation hearings must be made on a case-by-case basis in the exercise of a sound discretion by the state authority charged with responsibility for administering the probation and parole system.

• Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 401. 1972

  The Supreme Court of the United States outlines the due process requirements for revocation of parole.

• Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 2016

  After its previous ruling in Miller v. Alabama, wherein the United State Supreme Court held that a mandatory life sentence without parole should not apply to juveniles convicted of murder; the Court ruled to retroactively apply the decision.