Morrissey v. Brewer

Background

Two men paroled from an Iowa penitentiary had their paroles revoked after parole officers filed written reports, and the Iowa Board of Parole ordered them returned to prison without a prior hearing. They challenged the revocations in federal courts, which held no hearing was required. The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires some opportunity to be heard before parole is revoked.

Reasoning

The Court held that the conditional liberty of a parolee is protected by due process because its loss can inflict a grievous deprivation. The Court described two stages that must be provided. First, a prompt preliminary inquiry by someone not directly involved to determine whether there is reasonable ground or probable cause to hold the parolee. Second, a reasonable final revocation hearing, if the parolee wants one, that goes beyond probable cause and resolves contested facts and mitigation. The Court set minimum requirements: written notice of alleged violations, disclosure of evidence, opportunity to be heard and present witnesses and documents, confrontation and cross-examination unless disclosure would endanger a witness, a neutral and detached decisionmaker, and a written statement of reasons and evidence relied on. The Court left questions about appointment of counsel undecided and remanded the specific cases to determine what procedures actually occurred.

Real world impact

States and parole boards must adopt these minimum, informal procedures for future revocations. Parolees gain a right to a preliminary check on the accusations and to a timely final hearing before loss of parole becomes effective. The remedy in these two cases depends on the lower courts’ factual findings on what hearings, if any, were actually held.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan (joined by Marshall) agreed with the holding and emphasized the listed protections, noting at least a parolee may retain counsel though appointed counsel was left open. Justice Douglas, dissenting in part, urged broader protections including counsel and warned against returning parolees to prison before a fair hearing.