Schick v. Reed

Background

In 1954 a U.S. Army court-martial convicted a master sergeant of murder and sentenced him to death. In 1960 the President commuted that sentence to life in prison but added a condition: he would never be eligible for parole. The man was discharged from the Army and moved to a federal prison, where he served about 20 years before asking a court to require parole consideration.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court asked whether the President had authority to attach the no‑parole condition and whether a later change in death‑penalty law (the Court’s Furman decision) erased that condition. Relying on the Constitution’s pardoning power and long historical practice, the majority said the President can grant conditional commutations so long as the conditions do not violate the Constitution. The Court held Furman did not retroactively void a condition already lawfully imposed.

Real world impact

The ruling means that a President may impose no‑parole conditions when commuting a death sentence and that parole boards can lawfully refuse consideration under such a commutation. It leaves open the option for the prisoner to seek relief from a later President. Had he originally received life, he would have been eligible for parole in 1969. The Court did not decide whether Furman applies generally to military death sentences.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices dissented, arguing Furman should apply retroactively. They said the no‑parole condition flowed from the original death sentence and therefore should be voided so the prisoner would be eligible for parole and obtain attendant benefits.